2015
DOI: 10.1177/1971400915576637
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Machine learning methods for the classification of gliomas: Initial results using features extracted from MR spectroscopy

Abstract: The performance of different machine learning algorithms in the classification of gliomas is promising. An even better performance may be expected by integrating features extracted from other MR sequences.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
26
0
2

Year Published

2016
2016
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
4
3
2

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 58 publications
(29 citation statements)
references
References 18 publications
0
26
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…30 This approach can also distinguish low-grade from high-grade gliomas by MRI features from area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) analysis. 31 Building a classifier involved growing multiple decision trees based on random selection of predictors (ie, MRI features) and random selection of data (ie, glioma cases). In this study, all 120 patients were randomly assigned to either the training cohort (n = 90) or validation cohort (n = 30).…”
Section: Classification Proceduresmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…30 This approach can also distinguish low-grade from high-grade gliomas by MRI features from area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) analysis. 31 Building a classifier involved growing multiple decision trees based on random selection of predictors (ie, MRI features) and random selection of data (ie, glioma cases). In this study, all 120 patients were randomly assigned to either the training cohort (n = 90) or validation cohort (n = 30).…”
Section: Classification Proceduresmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…ML algorithms have been intuitively applied to “data-rich” MRI sequences in an effort to quantitatively discern characteristic imaging features of gliomas, due to differences between tumor area and normal brain 3236 . These methods have yielded ability to discern imaging features indicating the presence of MGMT methylation 35 , IDH1 mutation 3739 and 1p/19q co-deletion 38 .…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…After implementing several machine learning methods in this study, a sensitivity of 86.1% was achieved using the random forest method. The classification solutions in both these earlier works were based on the use of single voxel proton MR spectroscopy unlike the solution proposed in our work, where we used FLAIR-weighted MR images [18,19] .…”
Section: Literature Reviewmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The classification methodology addressed in the study by Ranjith et al attempted to classify the samples into two classes: benign and malignant. In this study, the database utilized consisted of MR spectroscopy data [19]. After implementing several machine learning methods in this study, a sensitivity of 86.1% was achieved using the random forest method.…”
Section: Literature Reviewmentioning
confidence: 99%