G I Cassinelli Petersen1,2, J Shatalov3, T Verma1,4, W R Brim5, H Subramanian1, A Brackett6, R C Bahar1, S Merkaj1, T Zeevi1, L H Staib1, J Cui1, A Omuro7, R A Bronen1, A Malhotra1, M S Aboian8. 1. From the Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging (G.I.C.P., T.V., H.S., R.C.B., S.M., T.Z., L.H.S., J.C., R.A.B., A.M., M.S.A.). 2. Universitätsmedizin Göttingen (G.I.C.P.), Göttingen, Germany. 3. University of Richmond (J.S.), Richmond, Virginia. 4. New York University (T.V.), New York, New York. 5. Whiting School of Engineering (W.R.B.), Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland. 6. Cushing/Whitney Medical Library (A.B.). 7. Department of Neurology (A.O.), Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut. 8. From the Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging (G.I.C.P., T.V., H.S., R.C.B., S.M., T.Z., L.H.S., J.C., R.A.B., A.M., M.S.A.) mariam.aboian@yale.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Differentiating gliomas and primary CNS lymphoma represents a diagnostic challenge with important therapeutic ramifications. Biopsy is the preferred method of diagnosis, while MR imaging in conjunction with machine learning has shown promising results in differentiating these tumors. PURPOSE: Our aim was to evaluate the quality of reporting and risk of bias, assess data bases with which the machine learning classification algorithms were developed, the algorithms themselves, and their performance. DATA SOURCES: Ovid EMBASE, Ovid MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and the Web of Science Core Collection were searched according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. STUDY SELECTION: From 11,727 studies, 23 peer-reviewed studies used machine learning to differentiate primary CNS lymphoma from gliomas in 2276 patients. DATA ANALYSIS: Characteristics of data sets and machine learning algorithms were extracted. A meta-analysis on a subset of studies was performed. Reporting quality and risk of bias were assessed using the Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis (TRIPOD) and Prediction Model Study Risk Of Bias Assessment Tool. DATA SYNTHESIS: The highest area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (0.961) and accuracy (91.2%) in external validation were achieved by logistic regression and support vector machines models using conventional radiomic features. Meta-analysis of machine learning classifiers using these features yielded a mean area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.944 (95% CI, 0.898-0.99). The median TRIPOD score was 51.7%. The risk of bias was high for 16 studies. LIMITATIONS: Exclusion of abstracts decreased the sensitivity in evaluating all published studies. Meta-analysis had high heterogeneity. CONCLUSIONS: Machine learning-based methods of differentiating primary CNS lymphoma from gliomas have shown great potential, but most studies lack large, balanced data sets and external validation. Assessment of the studies identified multiple deficiencies in reporting quality and risk of bias. These factors reduce the generalizability and reproducibility of the findings.
BACKGROUND: Differentiating gliomas and primary CNS lymphoma represents a diagnostic challenge with important therapeutic ramifications. Biopsy is the preferred method of diagnosis, while MR imaging in conjunction with machine learning has shown promising results in differentiating these tumors. PURPOSE: Our aim was to evaluate the quality of reporting and risk of bias, assess data bases with which the machine learning classification algorithms were developed, the algorithms themselves, and their performance. DATA SOURCES: Ovid EMBASE, Ovid MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and the Web of Science Core Collection were searched according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. STUDY SELECTION: From 11,727 studies, 23 peer-reviewed studies used machine learning to differentiate primary CNS lymphoma from gliomas in 2276 patients. DATA ANALYSIS: Characteristics of data sets and machine learning algorithms were extracted. A meta-analysis on a subset of studies was performed. Reporting quality and risk of bias were assessed using the Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis (TRIPOD) and Prediction Model Study Risk Of Bias Assessment Tool. DATA SYNTHESIS: The highest area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (0.961) and accuracy (91.2%) in external validation were achieved by logistic regression and support vector machines models using conventional radiomic features. Meta-analysis of machine learning classifiers using these features yielded a mean area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.944 (95% CI, 0.898-0.99). The median TRIPOD score was 51.7%. The risk of bias was high for 16 studies. LIMITATIONS: Exclusion of abstracts decreased the sensitivity in evaluating all published studies. Meta-analysis had high heterogeneity. CONCLUSIONS: Machine learning-based methods of differentiating primary CNS lymphoma from gliomas have shown great potential, but most studies lack large, balanced data sets and external validation. Assessment of the studies identified multiple deficiencies in reporting quality and risk of bias. These factors reduce the generalizability and reproducibility of the findings.
Authors: Ji Eun Park; Donghyun Kim; Ho Sung Kim; Seo Young Park; Jung Youn Kim; Se Jin Cho; Jae Ho Shin; Jeong Hoon Kim Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2019-07-26 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Anthony V Nguyen; Elizabeth E Blears; Evan Ross; Rishi R Lall; Juan Ortega-Barnett Journal: Neurosurg Focus Date: 2018-11-01 Impact factor: 4.047
Authors: Nathaniel C Swinburne; Javin Schefflein; Yu Sakai; Eric Karl Oermann; Joseph J Titano; Iris Chen; Sayedhedayatollah Tadayon; Amit Aggarwal; Amish Doshi; Kambiz Nael Journal: Ann Transl Med Date: 2019-06
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