Dataset Information

Classification of sodium MRI data of cartilage using machine learning.

ABSTRACT: To assess the possible utility of machine learning for classifying subjects with and subjects without osteoarthritis using sodium magnetic resonance imaging data. Theory: Support vector machine, k-nearest neighbors, naïve Bayes, discriminant analysis, linear regression, logistic regression, neural networks, decision tree, and tree bagging were tested.Sodium magnetic resonance imaging with and without fluid suppression by inversion recovery was acquired on the knee cartilage of 19 controls and 28 osteoarthritis patients. Sodium concentrations were measured in regions of interests in the knee for both acquisitions. Mean (MEAN) and standard deviation (STD) of these concentrations were measured in each regions of interest, and the minimum, maximum, and mean of these two measurements were calculated over all regions of interests for each subject. The resulting 12 variables per subject were used as predictors for classification.Either Min [STD] alone, or in combination with Mean [MEAN] or Min [MEAN], all from fluid suppressed data, were the best predictors with an accuracy >74%, mainly with linear logistic regression and linear support vector machine. Other good classifiers include discriminant analysis, linear regression, and naïve Bayes.Machine learning is a promising technique for classifying osteoarthritis patients and controls from sodium magnetic resonance imaging data.

SUBMITTER: Madelin G

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4417663 | biostudies-literature | 2015 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Classification of sodium MRI data of cartilage using machine learning.

Madelin Guillaume G Poidevin Frederick F Makrymallis Antonios A Regatte Ravinder R RR

Magnetic resonance in medicine 20141103 5

<h4>Purpose</h4>To assess the possible utility of machine learning for classifying subjects with and subjects without osteoarthritis using sodium magnetic resonance imaging data. Theory: Support vector machine, k-nearest neighbors, naïve Bayes, discriminant analysis, linear regression, logistic regression, neural networks, decision tree, and tree bagging were tested.<h4>Methods</h4>Sodium magnetic resonance imaging with and without fluid suppression by inversion recovery was acquired on the knee ...[more]

PMID: 25367844

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background:To evaluate the association of multiparametric and multiregional MRI-features with key molecular characteristics in patients with newly-diagnosed glioblastoma. Methods:Retrospective data evaluation was approved by the local ethics committee of the University of Heidelberg (ethics approval number: S-320/2012) and informed consent was waived. Preoperative MRI-features were correlated with key molecular characteristics within a single-institutional cohort of 152 patients with newly-diagnosed glioblastoma. Preoperative MRI-features (n=31) included multiparametric (anatomical, diffusion-, perfusion-, and susceptibility-weighted images) and multiregional (contrast enhancing and non-enhancing FLAIR-hyperintense) information with (histogram) quantification of tumor volumes, volume ratios, apparent diffusion coefficients, cerebral blood flow / volume (CBF / CBV) and intratumoral susceptibility signals. Molecular characteristics determined with the Illumina Infinium HumanMethylation450 array included global DNA-methylation subgroups (e.g. mesenchymal (MES), RTK I “PGFRA”, RTK II “classic”), MGMT-promoter methylation status and hallmark copy-number-variations (EGFR-, PDGFRA-, MDM4- and CDK4-amplification; PTEN-, CDKN2A-, NF1- and RB1-loss). Univariate analyses (voxel-lesion-symptom-mapping for tumor location, Wilcoxon-test for all other MRI-features) as well as machine-learning models were applied to study the strength of association and discriminative value of MRI-features for predicting underlying molecular characteristics. Results: There was no tumor location predilection for any of the assessed molecular parameters (permutation-adjusted p>0.05 each). Univariate imaging parameter associations were noted for EGFR amplification and CDKN2A loss, both demonstrating increased nrCBV and nrCBF values (performance of these parameters, as assessed by the area under the ROC curve ranged from 63 to 69%, FDR-adjusted p<0.05, respectively). Subjecting all MRI-features to machine-learning-based classification allowed to predict EGFR amplification status and the RTK II “classic” GB subgroup with a moderate, yet significantly greater accuracy (63% for EGFR [p<0.01] and 61% for RTK II [p=0.01]) than the prediction by chance, whereas prediction accuracy for all other molecular parameters was non-significant (p>0.05, all models). Conclusions: In summary, we found univariate associations between established MRI-features and molecular characteristics, however not of sufficient strength to allow the generation of machine-learning classification models for reliable and clinically meaningful prediction of the assessed molecular characteristics in patients with newly-diagnosed glioblastoma.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Accurate anesthesiology procedure code data are essential to quality improvement, research, and reimbursement tasks within anesthesiology practices. Advanced data science techniques, including machine learning and natural language processing, offer opportunities to develop classification tools for Current Procedural Terminology codes across anesthesia procedures. METHODS:Models were created using a Train/Test dataset including 1,164,343 procedures from 16 academic and private hospitals. Five supervised machine learning models were created to classify anesthesiology Current Procedural Terminology codes, with accuracy defined as first choice classification matching the institutional-assigned code existing in the perioperative database. The two best performing models were further refined and tested on a Holdout dataset from a single institution distinct from Train/Test. A tunable confidence parameter was created to identify cases for which models were highly accurate, with the goal of at least 95% accuracy, above the reported 2018 Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (Baltimore, Maryland) fee-for-service accuracy. Actual submitted claim data from billing specialists were used as a reference standard. RESULTS:Support vector machine and neural network label-embedding attentive models were the best performing models, respectively, demonstrating overall accuracies of 87.9% and 84.2% (single best code), and 96.8% and 94.0% (within top three). Classification accuracy was 96.4% in 47.0% of cases using support vector machine and 94.4% in 62.2% of cases using label-embedding attentive model within the Train/Test dataset. In the Holdout dataset, respective classification accuracies were 93.1% in 58.0% of cases and 95.0% among 62.0%. The most important feature in model training was procedure text. CONCLUSIONS:Through application of machine learning and natural language processing techniques, highly accurate real-time models were created for anesthesiology Current Procedural Terminology code classification. The increased processing speed and a priori targeted accuracy of this classification approach may provide performance optimization and cost reduction for quality improvement, research, and reimbursement tasks reliant on anesthesiology procedure codes.

Dataset Information

Classification of sodium MRI data of cartilage using machine learning.

Publications

Classification of sodium MRI data of cartilage using machine learning.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets