4.7 Article

A Fully-Automatic Multiparametric Radiomics Model: Towards Reproducible and Prognostic Imaging Signature for Prediction of Overall Survival in Glioblastoma Multiforme

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 7, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-017-14753-7

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [61571432]
  2. National High-Tech R&D Program of China for Young Scientist (863 program) [2015AA020933]
  3. National Basic Research Program of China (973 Program) [2015CB755500]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In fully-automatic radiomics model for predicting overall survival (OS) of glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) patients, the effect of image standardization parameters such as voxel size, quantization method and gray level on model reproducibility and prognostic performance are still unclear. In this study, 45792 multiregional radiomics features were automatically extracted from multi-modality MR images with different voxel sizes, quantization methods, and gray levels. The feature reproducibility and prognostic performance were assessed. Multiparametric and fixed-parameter radiomics signatures were constructed based on a training cohort (60 patients). In an independent validation cohort (32 patients), the multiparametric signature achieved better performance for OS prediction (C-Index = 0.705, 95% CI: 0.672, 0.738) and significant stratification of patients into high-and low-risk groups (P = 0.0040, HR = 3.29, 95% CI: 1.40, 7.70), which outperformed the fixed-parameter signatures and conventional factors such as age, Karnofsky Performance Score and tumor volume. This study demonstrated that voxel size, quantization method and gray level had influence on reproducibility and prognosis of radiomics features for GBM OS prediction. An automatic method to determine the optimal parameter settings was provided. It indicated that multiparametric radiomics signature had the potential of offering better prognostic performance than fixed-parameter signatures.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据