Literature DB >> 30453458

Machine learning analyses can differentiate meningioma grade by features on magnetic resonance imaging.

Andrew T Hale1,2, David P Stonko2, Li Wang3, Megan K Strother4, Lola B Chambless1,2.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVEPrognostication and surgical planning for WHO grade I versus grade II meningioma requires thoughtful decision-making based on radiographic evidence, among other factors. Although conventional statistical models such as logistic regression are useful, machine learning (ML) algorithms are often more predictive, have higher discriminative ability, and can learn from new data. The authors used conventional statistical models and an array of ML algorithms to predict atypical meningioma based on radiologist-interpreted preoperative MRI findings. The goal of this study was to compare the performance of ML algorithms to standard statistical methods when predicting meningioma grade.METHODSThe cohort included patients aged 18-65 years with WHO grade I (n = 94) and II (n = 34) meningioma in whom preoperative MRI was obtained between 1998 and 2010. A board-certified neuroradiologist, blinded to histological grade, interpreted all MR images for tumor volume, degree of peritumoral edema, presence of necrosis, tumor location, presence of a draining vein, and patient sex. The authors trained and validated several binary classifiers: k-nearest neighbors models, support vector machines, naïve Bayes classifiers, and artificial neural networks as well as logistic regression models to predict tumor grade. The area under the curve-receiver operating characteristic curve was used for comparison across and within model classes. All analyses were performed in MATLAB using a MacBook Pro.RESULTSThe authors included 6 preoperative imaging and demographic variables: tumor volume, degree of peritumoral edema, presence of necrosis, tumor location, patient sex, and presence of a draining vein to construct the models. The artificial neural networks outperformed all other ML models across the true-positive versus false-positive (receiver operating characteristic) space (area under curve = 0.8895).CONCLUSIONSML algorithms are powerful computational tools that can predict meningioma grade with great accuracy.

Entities:  

Keywords:  AI = artificial intelligence; ANN = artificial neural network; AUC = area under the curve; ML = machine learning; ROC = receiver operating characteristic; SVM = support vector machine; artificial intelligence; k-NN = k-nearest neighbors; machine learning; meningioma; predictive modeling

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30453458     DOI: 10.3171/2018.8.FOCUS18191

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Neurosurg Focus        ISSN: 1092-0684            Impact factor:   4.047


  11 in total

1.  WHO grade of intracranial meningiomas differs with respect to patient's age, location, tumor size and peritumoral edema.

Authors:  Anne Ressel; Susanne Fichte; Michael Brodhun; Steffen K Rosahl; Ruediger Gerlach
Journal:  J Neurooncol       Date:  2019-10-01       Impact factor: 4.130

Review 2.  Brachytherapy for central nervous system tumors.

Authors:  Evan D Bander; Jonathan P S Knisely; Theodore H Schwartz
Journal:  J Neurooncol       Date:  2022-05-11       Impact factor: 4.130

3.  Machine Learning Using Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging Radiomic Feature Analysis to Predict Ki-67 in World Health Organization Grade I Meningiomas.

Authors:  Omaditya Khanna; Anahita Fathi Kazerooni; Christopher J Farrell; Michael P Baldassari; Tyler D Alexander; Michael Karsy; Benjamin A Greenberger; Jose A Garcia; Chiharu Sako; James J Evans; Kevin D Judy; David W Andrews; Adam E Flanders; Ashwini D Sharan; Adam P Dicker; Wenyin Shi; Christos Davatzikos
Journal:  Neurosurgery       Date:  2021-10-13       Impact factor: 5.315

4.  A swine model of reproducible timed induction of peripheral arterial shunt failure: Developing warning signs of imminent shunt failure.

Authors:  David P Stonko; Neerav Patel; Joseph Edwards; Hossam Abdou; Eric Lang; Noha N Elansary; Rebecca Treffalls; Joseph White; Jonathan J Morrison
Journal:  JVS Vasc Sci       Date:  2022-08-17

5.  Peritumoral edema correlates with mutational burden in meningiomas.

Authors:  Corey M Gill; Joshua Loewenstern; John W Rutland; Hanane Arib; Margaret Pain; Melissa Umphlett; Yayoi Kinoshita; Russell B McBride; Joshua Bederson; Michael Donovan; Robert Sebra; Mary Fowkes; Raj K Shrivastava
Journal:  Neuroradiology       Date:  2020-08-12       Impact factor: 2.804

6.  Pre-operative MRI Radiomics for the Prediction of Progression and Recurrence in Meningiomas.

Authors:  Ching-Chung Ko; Yang Zhang; Jeon-Hor Chen; Kai-Ting Chang; Tai-Yuan Chen; Sher-Wei Lim; Te-Chang Wu; Min-Ying Su
Journal:  Front Neurol       Date:  2021-05-14       Impact factor: 4.003

Review 7.  A Spotlight on the Role of Radiomics and Machine-Learning Applications in the Management of Intracranial Meningiomas: A New Perspective in Neuro-Oncology: A Review.

Authors:  Lara Brunasso; Gianluca Ferini; Lapo Bonosi; Roberta Costanzo; Sofia Musso; Umberto E Benigno; Rosa M Gerardi; Giuseppe R Giammalva; Federica Paolini; Giuseppe E Umana; Francesca Graziano; Gianluca Scalia; Carmelo L Sturiale; Rina Di Bonaventura; Domenico G Iacopino; Rosario Maugeri
Journal:  Life (Basel)       Date:  2022-04-14

8.  Statistical considerations for testing an AI algorithm used for prescreening lung CT images.

Authors:  Nancy A Obuchowski; Jennifer A Bullen
Journal:  Contemp Clin Trials Commun       Date:  2019-08-22

Review 9.  Use of advanced neuroimaging and artificial intelligence in meningiomas.

Authors:  Norbert Galldiks; Frank Angenstein; Jan-Michael Werner; Elena K Bauer; Robin Gutsche; Gereon R Fink; Karl-Josef Langen; Philipp Lohmann
Journal:  Brain Pathol       Date:  2022-03       Impact factor: 6.508

10.  The Diagnostic Value of Radiomics-Based Machine Learning in Predicting the Grade of Meningiomas Using Conventional Magnetic Resonance Imaging: A Preliminary Study.

Authors:  Chaoyue Chen; Xinyi Guo; Jian Wang; Wen Guo; Xuelei Ma; Jianguo Xu
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2019-12-06       Impact factor: 6.244

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.