| Literature DB >> 35600605 |
Baoting Yu1, Chencui Huang2, Xiaofei Fan1, Feng Li2, Jianzhong Zhang1, Zihan Song3, Nan Zhi1, Jun Ding1.
Abstract
Objective: The objective of the study was to explore the value of MRI texture features based on T1WI, T2-FS and diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) in differentiation of renal changes in patients with stage III type 2 diabetic nephropathy (DN) and normal subjects. Materials andEntities:
Keywords: diabetic nephropathy; magnetic resonance; radiomics; renal changes; texture analysis
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35600605 PMCID: PMC9114464 DOI: 10.3389/fendo.2022.846407
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Endocrinol (Lausanne) ISSN: 1664-2392 Impact factor: 6.055
Patient characteristics in the primary and test cohort (n = 72).
| Primary cohort | Test cohort | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DN (n = 27) | NP (n = 29) | Statistic value |
| DN (n = 13) | NP (n = 15) | Statisticvalue |
| |
|
| ||||||||
| Male | 20 (71.43%) | 9 (31.03%) |
| 0.002* | 8 | 4 |
| 0.063 |
| Female | 7 (28.57%) | 20 (68.97%) | 5 | 11 | ||||
|
| ||||||||
| Range | 32–78 | 32–69 | F = 3.231 | 0.078 | 38–72 | 45–62 | F = 6.858 | 0.99 |
| Mean ± SD | 52.79 ± 2.295 | 47.41 ± 1.927 | 53.15 ± 3.109 | 53.20 ± 1.631 | ||||
|
| ||||||||
| Normal | 8 (28.57%) | 20 (68.97%) |
| 0002* | 3 | 6 |
| 0.339 |
| Fat | 20 (71.43%) | 9 (31.03%) | 10 | 9 | ||||
A P-value < 0.05 was considered to indicate a statistically significant difference. *Sex, BMI's test ^ chi-square test, *age's test ^ independent-samples t-test.
Figure 1Basic flow chart of this experiment.
Figure 2Respective MRI images of the right kidney with stage III type 2 DN and normal persons (NP). The ROI were curved over the renal parenchyma of the right kidney (red curve). In this study, the images analyzed were the T1WI maps, FS-T2WI and T2WI-cor maps, DWI and ADC maps.
The imaging features based on T1WI, FS-T2WI, ADC, and united model.
| No. | Imaging features based on T1WI (Intercept) | coef | relative_to_max |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | gradient_glszm_GrayLevelNonUniformity | 1.4128 | 1 |
| 2 | exponential_firstorder_Minimum | 0.9689 | 0.6858 |
| 3 | lbp-3D-m2_glszm_GrayLevelNonUniformityNormalized | −0.8933 | −0.6323 |
| 4 | lbp-3D-m1_glcm_Correlation | −0.8416 | −0.5957 |
| 5 | wavelet-HLH_glrlm_ShortRunLowGrayLevelEmphasis | 0.6492 | 0.4595 |
| 6 | lbp-3D-m1_glszm_LowGrayLevelZoneEmphasis | −0.6481 | −0.4587 |
| 7 | wavelet-HHH_glszm_GrayLevelNonUniformityNormalized | 0.1179 | 0.0834 |
|
|
|
|
|
| 1 | lbp-3D-m2_glszm_SmallAreaHighGrayLevelEmphasis | −1.5453 | −1 |
| 2 | lbp-3D-m2_gldm_DependenceVariance | −1.0865 | −0.7031 |
| 3 | logarithm_glszm_SizeZoneNonUniformity | 0.917 | 0.5934 |
| 4 | MeanFullBeforeNormalize | −0.7986 | −0.5168 |
| 5 | original_firstorder_Skewness | 0.7385 | 0.4779 |
| 6 | wavelet-LL_gldm_DependenceEntropy | 0.4581 | 0.2965 |
|
|
|
|
|
| 1 | exponential_glszm_GrayLevelNonUniformity | 1.4991 | 1 |
| 2 | lbp-2D_glrlm_ShortRunLowGrayLevelEmphasis | 1.1323 | 0.7553 |
| 3 | wavelet-HL_glcm_ClusterShade | −1.0306 | −0.6874 |
| 4 | lbp-3D-k_glrlm_ShortRunEmphasis | 0.8828 | 0.5889 |
| 5 | lbp-2D_glrlm_ShortRunHighGrayLevelEmphasis | −0.4154 | −0.2771 |
|
|
|
|
|
| 1 | lbp-3D-m2_glszm_SmallAreaHighGrayLevelEmphasis_T2 | −1.1194 | −1 |
| 2 | exponential_glszm_GrayLevelNonUniformity_ADC | 0.9311 | 0.8318 |
| 3 | logarithm_glszm_SizeZoneNonUniformity_T2 | 0.8222 | 0.7345 |
| 4 | lbp-3D-m1_glszm_LowGrayLevelZoneEmphasis_T1 | −0.7809 | −0.6976 |
| 5 | lbp-2D_glrlm_ShortRunLowGrayLevelEmphasis_ADC | 0.7481 | 0.6683 |
| 6 | wavelet-HL_glcm_ClusterShade_ADC | −0.6952 | −0.621 |
| 7 | exponential_firstorder_Minimum_T1 | 0.6247 | 0.5581 |
| 8 | original_firstorder_Skewness_T2 | 0.6183 | 0.5524 |
| 9 | lbp-3D-m2_gldm_DependenceVariance_T2 | −0.5763 | −0.5148 |
| 10 | wavelet-LL_gldm_DependenceEntropy_T2 | 0.4354 | 0.3889 |
Figure 3Interobserver (A) and intraobserver (B) consistency (ICC).
Performance of each model in primary cohort and test cohort.
| Model name | Primary cohort | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AUC | ACC (%) | SEN (%) | SPE (%) | PPV (%) | NPV (%) | |
| United model | 0.98 | 92.8 | 88.9 | 96.5 | 96.0 | 90.3 |
| T1WI model | 0.92 | 85.9 | 85.1 | 86.7 | 85.2 | 86.7 |
| FS-T2 model | 0.95 | 91.2 | 92.9 | 89.6 | 89.6 | 92.9 |
| ADC model | 0.91 | 80.3 | 74.1 | 86.2 | 83.3 | 78.1 |
| T2-COR model | 0.85 | 78.9 | 75.8 | 82.1 | 81.5 | 76.7 |
| DWI model | 0.84 | 75.0 | 74.1 | 75.9 | 74.1 | 75.9 |
| Test cohort | ||||||
| United model | 0.98 | 89.3 | 92.3 | 86.7 | 85.7 | 92.9 |
The united model is T1WI + T2WI + ADC model; Area under curve (AUC), Accuracy (ACC), Sensitivity (SEN), Specificity (SPE), Positive predictive value (PPV), Negative predictive value (NPV).
Figure 4Confusion matrix for the model in primary set (A) and test set (B). A confusion matrix was used to examine whether or not there was consistency between the stage III type 2 DN and normal subjects. Different colors represent different cases. The color becomes lighter as the number increases. (Note: Numbers 0 and 1 represent normal patient and DN, respectively).
Figure 5ROC curve analysis of the primary set (A) and test set (B) between the stage III type 2 DN and normal subjects. The solid lines in different colors indicate that the ROC curve for each model correspond to a different AUC, which represents the positive rate of predict and distinguish the stage III type 2 DN and normal subjects. The solid lines in different colors indicate the ROC curves of the T1WI, FS-T2WI, ADC and united models.