Curtis K Sohn1, Sotirios Bisdas1,2. 1. Queen Square Institute of Neurology, University College London, Queen Square 7, London WC1N 3BG, UK. 2. Lysholm Department of Neuroradiology, The National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery, Queen Square 8-11, London WC1N 3BG, UK.
Abstract
Purpose: This study aimed to estimate the diagnostic accuracy of machine learning- (ML-) based radiomics in differentiating high-grade gliomas (HGG) from low-grade gliomas (LGG) and to identify potential covariates that could affect the diagnostic accuracy of ML-based radiomic analysis in classifying gliomas. Method: A primary literature search of the PubMed database was conducted to find all related literatures in English between January 1, 2009, and May 1, 2020, with combining synonyms for "machine learning," "glioma," and "radiomics." Five retrospective designed original articles including LGG and HGG subjects were chosen. Pooled sensitivity, specificity, their 95% confidence interval, area under curve (AUC), and hierarchical summary receiver-operating characteristic (HSROC) models were obtained. Result: The pooled sensitivity when diagnosing HGG was higher (96% (95% CI: 0.93, 0.98)) than the specificity when diagnosing LGG (90% (95% CI 0.85, 0.93)). Heterogeneity was observed in both sensitivity and specificity. Metaregression confirmed the heterogeneity in sample sizes (p=0.05), imaging sequence types (p=0.02), and data sources (p=0.01), but not for the inclusion of the testing set (p=0.19), feature extraction number (p=0.36), and selection of feature number (p=0.18). The results of subgroup analysis indicate that sample sizes of more than 100 and feature selection numbers less than the total sample size positively affected the diagnostic performance in differentiating HGG from LGG. Conclusion: This study demonstrates the excellent diagnostic performance of ML-based radiomics in differentiating HGG from LGG.
Purpose: This study aimed to estimate the diagnostic accuracy of machine learning- (ML-) based radiomics in differentiating high-grade gliomas (HGG) from low-grade gliomas (LGG) and to identify potential covariates that could affect the diagnostic accuracy of ML-based radiomic analysis in classifying gliomas. Method: A primary literature search of the PubMed database was conducted to find all related literatures in English between January 1, 2009, and May 1, 2020, with combining synonyms for "machine learning," "glioma," and "radiomics." Five retrospective designed original articles including LGG and HGG subjects were chosen. Pooled sensitivity, specificity, their 95% confidence interval, area under curve (AUC), and hierarchical summary receiver-operating characteristic (HSROC) models were obtained. Result: The pooled sensitivity when diagnosing HGG was higher (96% (95% CI: 0.93, 0.98)) than the specificity when diagnosing LGG (90% (95% CI 0.85, 0.93)). Heterogeneity was observed in both sensitivity and specificity. Metaregression confirmed the heterogeneity in sample sizes (p=0.05), imaging sequence types (p=0.02), and data sources (p=0.01), but not for the inclusion of the testing set (p=0.19), feature extraction number (p=0.36), and selection of feature number (p=0.18). The results of subgroup analysis indicate that sample sizes of more than 100 and feature selection numbers less than the total sample size positively affected the diagnostic performance in differentiating HGG from LGG. Conclusion: This study demonstrates the excellent diagnostic performance of ML-based radiomics in differentiating HGG from LGG.
Authors: Alessandro Liberati; Douglas G Altman; Jennifer Tetzlaff; Cynthia Mulrow; Peter C Gøtzsche; John P A Ioannidis; Mike Clarke; P J Devereaux; Jos Kleijnen; David Moher Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2009-07-23 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: Virendra Kumar; Yuhua Gu; Satrajit Basu; Anders Berglund; Steven A Eschrich; Matthew B Schabath; Kenneth Forster; Hugo J W L Aerts; Andre Dekker; David Fenstermacher; Dmitry B Goldgof; Lawrence O Hall; Philippe Lambin; Yoganand Balagurunathan; Robert A Gatenby; Robert J Gillies Journal: Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2012-08-13 Impact factor: 2.546
Authors: Penny F Whiting; Anne W S Rutjes; Marie E Westwood; Susan Mallett; Jonathan J Deeks; Johannes B Reitsma; Mariska M G Leeflang; Jonathan A C Sterne; Patrick M M Bossuyt Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2011-10-18 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Juan A Guzmán-De-Villoria; José M Mateos-Pérez; Pilar Fernández-García; Enrique Castro; Manuel Desco Journal: Cancer Imaging Date: 2014-12-12 Impact factor: 3.909
Authors: Ryan C Bahar; Sara Merkaj; Gabriel I Cassinelli Petersen; Niklas Tillmanns; Harry Subramanian; Waverly Rose Brim; Tal Zeevi; Lawrence Staib; Eve Kazarian; MingDe Lin; Khaled Bousabarah; Anita J Huttner; Andrej Pala; Seyedmehdi Payabvash; Jana Ivanidze; Jin Cui; Ajay Malhotra; Mariam S Aboian Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2022-04-22 Impact factor: 5.738
Authors: Sara Merkaj; Ryan C Bahar; Tal Zeevi; MingDe Lin; Ichiro Ikuta; Khaled Bousabarah; Gabriel I Cassinelli Petersen; Lawrence Staib; Seyedmehdi Payabvash; John T Mongan; Soonmee Cha; Mariam S Aboian Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2022-05-25 Impact factor: 6.575