Machine learning: a useful radiological adjunct in determination of a newly diagnosed glioma’s grade and IDH status
Machine learning methods have been introduced as a computer aided diagnostic tool, with applications to glioma characterisation on MRI. Such an algorithmic approach may provide a useful adjunct for a rapid and accurate diagnosis of a glioma. The aim of this study is to devise a machine learning algorithm that may be used by radiologists in routine practice to aid diagnosis of both: WHO grade and IDH mutation status in de novo gliomas.
To evaluate the status quo, we interrogated the accuracy of neuroradiology reports in relation to WHO grade: grade II 96.49% (95% confidence intervals [CI] 0.88, 0.99); III 36.51% (95% CI 0.24, 0.50); IV 72.9% (95% CI 0.67, 0.78). We derived five MRI parameters from the same diagnostic brain scans, in under two minutes per case, and then supplied these data to a random forest algorithm.
Machine learning resulted in a high level of accuracy in prediction of tumour grade: grade II/III; area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) = 98%, sensitivity = 0.82, specificity = 0.94; grade II/IV; AUC = 100%, sensitivity = 1.0, specificity = 1.0; grade III/IV; AUC = 97%, sensitivity = 0.83, specificity = 0.97. Furthermore, machine learning also facilitated the discrimination of IDH status: AUC of 88%, sensitivity = 0.81, specificity = 0.77.
These data demonstrate the ability of machine learning to accurately classify diffuse gliomas by both WHO grade and IDH status from routine MRI alone—without significant image processing, which may facilitate usage as a diagnostic adjunct in clinical practice.
KeywordsDiagnostic accuracy Machine learning Glioma Random forest MRI
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
None of the authors of this study have any conflict of interest in relation to this work.
Human and animal participants
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed consent was obtained from all participants in this study.
- 14.Knopp EA, Cha S, Johnson G et al (1999) Glial neoplasms: dynamic contrast-enhanced T2*-weighted MR imaging. Radiology 211:791–798. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.211.3.r99jn46791 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 28.Reuss DE, Sahm F, Schrimpf D et al (2015) ATRX and IDH1-R132H immunohistochemistry with subsequent copy number analysis and IDH sequencing as a basis for an “integrated” diagnostic approach for adult astrocytoma, oligodendroglioma and glioblastoma. Acta Neuropathol 129:133–146. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00401-014-1370-3 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 36.Fernández-Delgado M, Cernadas E, Barro S et al (2014) Do we need hundreds of classifiers to solve real world classification problems? J Mach Learn Res 15:3133–3181Google Scholar
- 38.Srivastava N, Hinton G, Krizhevsky A et al (2014) Dropout: a simple way to prevent neural networks from overfitting. J Mach Learn Res 15:1929–1958Google Scholar
- 44.Kickingereder P, Bonekamp D, Nowosielski M et al (2016) Radiogenomics of Glioblastoma: Machine Learning-based Classification of Molecular Characteristics by Using Multiparametric and Multiregional MR Imaging Features. Radiology 281:907–918. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2016161382 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar