ArticleEuropean radiology experimental2026
Radiomics and machine learning for differentiating pediatric intramedullary spinal tumors: a pilot study.
Article in European radiology experimental, 2026. 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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesConventional magnetic resonance imaging faces limitations in differentiating among pediatric intramedullary spinal tumors (IMSTs). We evaluated radiomics-based machine learning (ML) models using sagittal T2-weighted images to differentiate pilocytic astrocytomas (PA) and ependymomas (EP), independently, from other IMSTs. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis single-center retrospective study included pediatric patients diagnosed with IMST from 2000 to 2023. Manual tumor segmentation was performed on sagittal T2-WI, in correlation with sagittal contrast-enhanced T1-weighted images using ITK-SNAP. Radiomic features were extracted using PyRadiomics. Effect size validation assessed feature analytical suitability prior to ML implementation. Three ML models with two feature selection methodologies were deployed using nested leave-one-out cross-validation. Balanced accuracy, Matthews correlation coefficient (MCC), sensitivity, specificity, positive/negative predictive values (PPV, NPV), F1 score, area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), Youden's J, and Cohen's d were calculated.
resultsForty patients, aged 9.2 ± 5.4 years (mean ± standard deviation), 21 females, were analyzed. Tumors comprised PAs (n = 16), EPs (n = 11), gangliogliomas (n = 6), and others (n = 7). Cohen's d was 0.356 for PAs and 0.741 for EPs. PA radiomics showed inadequate capacity, resulting in suboptimal ML performance. Random forest with least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) achieved superior EP classification using an average of four features (Youden's J = 0.243): balanced accuracy 0.834 (95% confidence interval: 0.723-0.955, p < 0.0001), AUC 0.838, sensitivity 0.909, specificity 0.759, PPV 0.588, NPV 0.957, and MCC 0.603.
conclusionRadiomics-based ML differentiated EPs but not PAs from other pediatric IMSTs using sagittal T2-weighted images. KEY POINTS: Question Can radiomic-based machine learning models differentiate pediatric intramedullary spinal tumors? Findings Random forest with LASSO feature selection achieved acceptable performance in distinguishing ependymomas from other IMSTs, with balanced accuracy of 0.834, AUC of 0.838, and MCC of 0.603. Relevance statement This review highlights the emerging role of time-resolved ("4D") approaches in postmortem imaging, demonstrating how integrating temporal information can enhance reconstruction of injury mechanisms, postmortem processes, and medicolegal interpretation, thereby expanding forensic radiology beyond static documentation toward process-oriented forensic investigation.
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.