It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
To investigate the applicability and performance of automated machine learning (AutoML) for potential applications in diagnostic neuroradiology. In the medical sector, there is a rapidly growing demand for machine learning methods, but only a limited number of corresponding experts. The comparatively simple handling of AutoML should enable even non-experts to develop adequate machine learning models with manageable effort. We aim to investigate the feasibility as well as the advantages and disadvantages of developing AutoML models compared to developing conventional machine learning models. We discuss the results in relation to a concrete example of a medical prediction application. In this retrospective IRB-approved study, a cohort of 107 patients who underwent gross total meningioma resection and a second cohort of 31 patients who underwent subtotal resection were included. Image segmentation of the contrast enhancing parts of the tumor was performed semi-automatically using the open-source software platform 3D Slicer. A total of 107 radiomic features were extracted by hand-delineated regions of interest from the pre-treatment MRI images of each patient. Within the AutoML approach, 20 different machine learning algorithms were trained and tested simultaneously. For comparison, a neural network and different conventional machine learning algorithms were trained and tested. With respect to the exemplary medical prediction application used in this study to evaluate the performance of Auto ML, namely the pre-treatment prediction of the achievable resection status of meningioma, AutoML achieved remarkable performance nearly equivalent to that of a feed-forward neural network with a single hidden layer. However, in the clinical case study considered here, logistic regression outperformed the AutoML algorithm. Using independent test data, we observed the following classification results (AutoML/neural network/logistic regression): mean area under the curve = 0.849/0.879/0.900, mean accuracy = 0.821/0.839/0.881, mean kappa = 0.465/0.491/0.644, mean sensitivity = 0.578/0.577/0.692 and mean specificity = 0.891/0.914/0.936. The results obtained with AutoML are therefore very promising. However, the AutoML models in our study did not yet show the corresponding performance of the best models obtained with conventional machine learning methods. While AutoML may facilitate and simplify the task of training and testing machine learning algorithms as applied in the field of neuroradiology and medical imaging, a considerable amount of expert knowledge may still be needed to develop models with the highest possible discriminatory power for diagnostic neuroradiology.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details
1 Westfälische Wilhelms-University Muenster and University Hospital Münster, University Clinic for Radiology, Muenster, Germany (GRID:grid.16149.3b) (ISNI:0000 0004 0551 4246)
2 Kantonsspital Aarau, Institute of Neuroradiology, Aarau, Switzerland (GRID:grid.413357.7) (ISNI:0000 0000 8704 3732); University of Bern, Faculty of Medicine, Bern, Switzerland (GRID:grid.5734.5) (ISNI:0000 0001 0726 5157)
3 University of Zürich, Faculty of Medicine, Zürich, Switzerland (GRID:grid.7400.3) (ISNI:0000 0004 1937 0650)
4 Radboud University Medical Center, Department of Medical Imaging, Nijmegen, The Netherlands (GRID:grid.10417.33) (ISNI:0000 0004 0444 9382)
5 Westfälische Wilhelms-University Muenster and University Hospital Muenster, Department of Neurosurgery, Muenster, Germany (GRID:grid.16149.3b) (ISNI:0000 0004 0551 4246)