【24h】

Machine Learning and Glioblastoma: Treatment Response Monitoring Biomarkers in 2021

机译:机器学习和胶质细胞瘤:2021年治疗反应监测生物标志物

获取原文

摘要

The aim of the systematic review was to assess recently published studies on diagnostic test accuracy of glioblastoma treatment response monitoring biomarkers in adults, developed through machine learning (ML). Articles published 09/2018-09/2020 were searched for using MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Register. Included study participants were adult patients with high grade glioma who had undergone standard treatment (maximal resection, radiotherapy with concomitant and adjuvant temozolomide) and subsequently underwent follow-up imaging to determine treatment response status (specifically, distinguishing progression/recurrence from progression/recurrence mimics - the target condition). Risk of bias and applicability was assessed with QUADAS 2 methodology. Contingency tables were created for hold-out test sets and recall, specificity, precision, F1-score, balanced accuracy calculated. Fifteen studies were included with 1038 patients in training sets and 233 in test sets. To determine whether there was progression or a mimic, the reference standard combination of follow-up imaging and histopathology at re-operation was applied in 67% (10/15) of studies. External hold-out test sets were used in 27% (4/15) to give ranges of diagnostic accuracy measures: recall = 0.70-1.00; specificity = 0.67-0.90; precision = 0.78-0.88; F1 score = 0.74-0.94; balanced accuracy = 0.74-0.83; AUC = 0.80-0.85. The small numbers of patient included in studies, the high risk of bias and concerns of applicability in the study designs (particularly in relation to the reference standard and patient selection due to confounding), and the low level of evidence, suggest that limited conclusions can be drawn from the data. There is likely good diagnostic performance of machine learning models that use MRI features to distinguish between progression and mimics. The diagnostic performance of ML using implicit features did not appear to be superior to ML using explicit features. There are a range of ML-based solutions poised to become treatment response monitoring biomarkers for glioblastoma. To achieve this, the development and validation of ML models require large, well-annotated datasets where the potential for confounding in the study design has been carefully considered. Therefore, multidisciplinary efforts and multicentre collaborations are necessary.
机译:系统审查的目的是评估最近公布的胶质母细胞瘤治疗响应监测成人的诊断测试准确性的研究,通过机器学习(ml)开发。搜索使用Medline,EMBASE和Cochrane登记册的文章09/2010-09 / 2020。包括的研究参与者是成年患者患者高级胶质瘤,经历了标准治疗(最大切除,伴随的唑类替替替替替莫唑胺),随后进行了后续成像以确定治疗响应状态(具体而言,从进展/复发中区分进展/复发 - 目标条件)。 Quadas 2方法评估了偏见和适用性的风险。创建了应急表,用于举起测试集和召回,特异性,精度,F1分数,计算平衡精度。十五项研究包括在训练集和233名患者中,在测试集中含有233名患者。为了确定是否存在进展或模仿,在67%(10/15)的研究中,在重新运行中进行后续成像和组织病理学的参考标准组合。外部保持测试组用于27%(4/15),以提供诊断准确度措施的范围:召回= 0.70-1.00;特异性= 0.67-0.90;精度= 0.78-0.88; F1得分= 0.74-0.94;平衡精度= 0.74-0.83; AUC = 0.80-0.85。少数患者包括在研究中,偏差的高风险和在研究设计中的适用性的担忧(特别是与混淆导致的参考标准和患者选择)以及低级别的证据,表明有限的结论可以从数据中汲取。机器学习模型可能有很好的诊断性能,这些模型使用MRI功能区分进展和模仿。使用隐式功能ML的诊断性能似乎没有使用显式功能优于ML。有一系列基于ML的溶液使其成为治疗反应监测胶质母细胞瘤的生物标志物。为实现这一目标,ML模型的开发和验证需要大量良好的注释数据集,其中仔细考虑了研究设计中的混淆可能。因此,需要多学科努力和多环境合作。

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号