| Literature DB >> 31921635 |
Yang Zhang1,2, Chaoyue Chen1, Yangfan Cheng2, Yuen Teng2, Wen Guo2, Hui Xu3, Xuejin Ou2, Jian Wang4, Hui Li2, Xuelei Ma5,6, Jianguo Xu1.
Abstract
Objectives: To investigate the ability of radiomics features from MRI in differentiating anaplastic oligodendroglioma (AO) from atypical low-grade oligodendroglioma using machine-learning algorithms.Entities:
Keywords: anaplastic oligodendroglioma; grading; machine learning; magnetic resonance imaging; oligodendroglioma; radiomics
Year: 2019 PMID: 31921635 PMCID: PMC6929242 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2019.01371
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Oncol ISSN: 2234-943X Impact factor: 6.244
Figure 1The flowchart of patient enrollment process. MR, magnetic resonance.
Figure 2Examples of atypical low-grade oligodendroglioma and anaplastic oligodendroglioma on MRI. (A) A patient with atypical low-grade oligodendroglioma in contrast-enhanced T1-weighted (T1C) image. (B) A patient with atypical low-grade oligodendroglioma in fluid-attenuation inversion recovery (FLAIR) image. (C) A patient with anaplastic oligodendroglioma in T1C image. (D) A patient with anaplastic oligodendroglioma in FLAIR image.
Figure 3The workflow chart from image processing to model establishment. ROI, regions of interest; LASSO, least absolute shrinkage and selection operator; GBDT, gradient boosting decision tree; LDA, linear discriminant analysis; RF, random forest; SVM, support vector machine; AUC, area under the curve.
Characteristics of patients and lesions.
| Age, | ||
| 0–20 years | 5 (9.8) | 1 (2.0) |
| 21–40 years | 22 (43.1) | 15 (30.0) |
| 41–60 years | 19 (37.3) | 23 (46.0) |
| 61–80 years | 5 (9.8) | 11 (22.0) |
| Mean age (range) (year) | 38.7 (7–71) | 47.1 (16–76) |
| Gender, | ||
| Male | 29 (56.9) | 25 (50.0) |
| Female | 22 (43.1) | 25 (50.0) |
| Ki-67 labeling index, | ||
| <10% | 35 (68.6) | 9 (18.0) |
| ≥10% | 16 (31.4) | 41 (82.0) |
| Average days between MR scan and surgery | 9.4 | 7.9 |
MR, magnetic resonance.
Discriminative performance of models using RF classifier and different selection methods in distinguishing anaplastic oligodendroglioma from atypical low-grade oligodendroglioma in the training group and the validation group.
| Distance correlation | 0.927 | 0.928 | 0.959 | 0.901 | 0.874 | 0.876 | 0.925 | 0.825 |
| LASSO | 0.945 | 0.946 | 0.976 | 0.921 | 0.904 | 0.900 | 0.971 | 0.833 |
| GBDT | 0.959 | 0.960 | 0.984 | 0.939 | 0.896 | 0.895 | 0.952 | 0.838 |
| Distance correlation | 0.911 | 0.835 | 0.775 | 0.915 | 0.836 | 0.833 | 0.813 | 0.868 |
| LASSO | 0.946 | 0.863 | 0.844 | 0.882 | 0.855 | 0.756 | 0.780 | 0.725 |
| GBDT | 0.957 | 0.882 | 0.839 | 0.931 | 0.861 | 0.783 | 0.770 | 0.806 |
RF, random forest; AUC, area under the curve; LASSO, least absolute shrinkage and selection operator; GBDT, gradient boosting decision tree; T1C, contrast-enhanced T1-weighted; FLAIR, fluid-attenuation inversion recovery.
Discriminative performance of models using LDA classifier and different selection methods in distinguishing anaplastic oligodendroglioma from atypical low-grade oligodendroglioma in the training group and the validation group.
| Distance correlation | 0.896 | 0.898 | 0.919 | 0.879 | 0.880 | 0.886 | 0.935 | 0.835 |
| LASSO | 0.928 | 0.929 | 0.949 | 0.911 | 0.835 | 0.829 | 0.926 | 0.748 |
| GBDT | 0.918 | 0.918 | 0.918 | 0.917 | 0.879 | 0.881 | 0.904 | 0.854 |
| Distance correlation | 0.866 | 0.796 | 0.727 | 0.900 | 0.843 | 0.783 | 0.740 | 0.887 |
| LASSO | 0.891 | 0.807 | 0.752 | 0.879 | 0.819 | 0.739 | 0.735 | 0.746 |
| GBDT | 0.943 | 0.862 | 0.836 | 0.889 | 0.848 | 0.817 | 0.802 | 0.841 |
LDA, linear discriminant analysis; AUC, area under the curve; LASSO, least absolute shrinkage and selection operator; GBDT, gradient boosting decision tree; T1C, contrast-enhanced T1-weighted; FLAIR, fluid-attenuation inversion recovery.
Discriminative performance of models using SVM classifier and different selection methods in distinguishing anaplastic oligodendroglioma from atypical low-grade oligodendroglioma in the training group and the validation group.
| Distance correlation | 0.885 | 0.889 | 0.981 | 0.829 | 0.866 | 0.857 | 0.989 | 0.760 |
| LASSO | 0.759 | 0.770 | 0.930 | 0.700 | 0.702 | 0.657 | 0.881 | 0.570 |
| GBDT | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | / | / | / | / |
| Distance correlation | 0.904 | 0.738 | 0.650 | 0.965 | 0.860 | 0.772 | 0.715 | 0.953 |
| LASSO | 0.712 | 0.689 | 0.616 | 0.878 | 0.606 | 0.678 | 0.664 | 0.716 |
| GBDT | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | / | / | / | / |
SVM, support vector machine; AUC, area under the curve; LASSO, least absolute shrinkage and selection operator; GBDT, gradient boosting decision tree; T1C, contrast-enhanced T1-weighted; FLAIR, fluid-attenuation inversion recovery; /, overfitting.