Using Single-Voxel Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy Data Acquired at 1.5T to Classify Multivoxel Data at 3T
In vivo magnetic resonance spectroscopy (MRS) has two modalities, single-voxel (SV) and multivoxel (MV), in which one or more contiguous grids of SVs are acquired. Purpose: To test whether MV grids can be classified with models trained with SV. Methods: Retrospective study. Training dataset: Multice...
| Authors: | , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | article |
| Publication Date: | 2023 |
| Country: | España |
| Institution: | Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona |
| Repository: | Dipòsit Digital de Documents de la UAB |
| Language: | English |
| OAI Identifier: | oai:ddd.uab.cat:282479 |
| Online Access: | https://ddd.uab.cat/record/282479 https://dx.doi.org/urn:doi:10.3390/cancers15143709 |
| Access Level: | Open access |
| Keyword: | Magnetic resonance spectroscopy Brain tumors Glioblastoma multiforme Decision support systems Nosologic imaging Metabolic pattern |
| Summary: | In vivo magnetic resonance spectroscopy (MRS) has two modalities, single-voxel (SV) and multivoxel (MV), in which one or more contiguous grids of SVs are acquired. Purpose: To test whether MV grids can be classified with models trained with SV. Methods: Retrospective study. Training dataset: Multicenter multiformat SV INTERPRET, 1.5T. Testing dataset: MV eTumour, 3T. Two classification tasks were completed: 3-class (meningioma vs. aggressive vs. normal) and 4-class (meningioma vs. low-grade glioma vs. aggressive vs. normal). Five different methods were tested for feature selection. The classification was implemented using linear discriminant analysis (LDA), random forest, and support vector machines. The evaluation was completed with balanced error rate (BER) and area under the curve (AUC) on both sets. The accuracy in class prediction was calculated by developing a solid tumor index (STI) and segmentation accuracy with the Dice score. Results: The best method was sequential forward feature selection combined with LDA, with AUCs = 0.95 (meningioma), 0.89 (aggressive), 0.82 (low-grade glioma), and 0.82 (normal). STI was 66% (4-class task) and 71% (3-class task) because two cases failed completely and two more had suboptimal STI as defined by us. Discussion: The reasons for failure in the classification of the MV test set were related to the presence of artifacts. |
|---|