ArticleNeuro-oncology advances
Artificial intelligence-based volumetric measurements for longitudinal clinical assessment of treatment response in high-grade gliomas: Validation across institutional and public datasets.
Article in Neuro-oncology advances. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: High-grade gliomas (HGGs) require ongoing imaging to guide treatment, traditionally relying on labor-intensive and variable manual MRI measurements. While FDA-cleared artificial intelligence (AI) tools offer automated tumor volume segmentation, their clinical utility in decision-making remains understudied. This study assesses the utility and limitations of an FDA-cleared AI-based tool across public and institutional datasets, comparing its output with multidisciplinary tumor board (MDTB) assessments. Methods: We applied the FDA-cleared, AI-based tool Neosoma HGG to quantify tumor volumes in 214 subjects from public datasets and 49 from an institutional cohort. AI-derived volumes were compared to expert manual and other AI-based measurements. Therapeutic response assessments using RANO criteria were evaluated against MDTB diagnoses. Segmentation times were analyzed using mixed-model regression. Results: We analyzed 1648 MRI sequences of 95 HGG patients across three datasets. Contrast-enhancing (CE) tumor volumes were consistent across AI platforms, and Neosoma HGG significantly reduced segmentation time (pre-operative: 210.5s, post-operative: 179s vs. 15 s, Conclusion: AI-based volumetric segmentation has the potential to improve efficiency and standardization in monitoring HGG, especially for CE tumor burden. However, moderate concordance with MDTB assessments and difficulties with FLAIR imaging underscore its current limitations. AI should serve as a clinical decision support tool, with further refinement needed to improve specificity and integrate multimodal imaging data.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.