ArticleFrontiers in neurology
Clinical application of artificial intelligence algorithms in detecting clival remodeling in the setting of pituitary neuroendocrine tumors/pituitary adenomas.
Article in Frontiers in neurology. 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Pituitary neoplasms may expand the sella and invade into adjacent structures, including the sphenoid sinus and/or the clivus. Previously, sellar remodeling assisted with detecting these tumors prior to the creation of computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging. This project aims to quantify efficacy for discerning clival osseous changes in patients with pituitary neuroendocrine tumors (PitNETs) when compared to controls using artificial intelligence and machine learning models. Methods: Electronic health records were reviewed. Still images of standard bone window CT heads were captured and compared using supervised machine learning/convolutional neural network (CNN) models trained on three singular axis (axial, coronal, or sagittal) CT sequences of a manually segmented clivus bone for each patient (102 images from 34 functioning PitNETs, 240 images from 80 nonfunctioning PitNET, and 387 images from 129 normal patients). Results: Overall, accuracies were favorable for axial sequences: Model 1 (axial PitNET vs. normal, accuracy 81%) and Model 4 (axial non-functioning PitNET vs. functioning PitNET, accuracy 95%), and Model 7 (axial non-functioning PitNET vs. functioning PitNET vs. normal, accuracy 83%). This performance difference may be due to added benefit of bilateral and anterior-posterior image features on axial views. Although this bilaterality of information is also available in coronal views, models consistently performed poorly compared to sagittal and axial sequences. Discussion/conclusion: To date, no reports have detailed use of a CNN to identify subtle osseous changes and potentially detect PitNETs based on CT bone windows alone. Our models produced average accuracies up to 81% in correct identification of PitNET vs. control and 95% correct identification of functioning vs. nonfunctioning PitNET. These findings serve as a proof-of-concept that CNNs, may be trained to provide acceptable levels of accuracy with CT imaging, a modality more readily available than MRI.
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.