Table 2:

Derived aims and key findings of studies examining 1p19q status of IDH-mut LGG

First Author and YearDerived AimKey Findings
Han 202035To determine if clinical and standard imaging factors improve classificationThe AUC (95% CI) = 0.753 (0.654–0.852) for clinical plus radiomic features versus AUC = 0.760 (0.663-0.857) for just radiomic features; radiomic features were superior to clinical features alone, AUC = 0.627 (0.551–0.703)
Kocak 202026To determine the best ML classifierThe neural network produced the highest AUC (95% CI) = 0.869 (0.751–0.981); sensitivity of 87.5%, specificity of 75.8%
Lu 201828To determine the best ML classifierClassification occurred with an AUC = 0.92 (sensitivity of 88.5%, specificity of 86.2%) using quadratic SVM
Shofty 201831To determine the best ML classifierClassification occurred with an AUC = 0.87 (sensitivity of 92%, specificity of 83%) using ensemble bagged trees classifier
Zhou 201734To determine if VASARI annotations were superior to standard radiomic analysis for classificationTexture features classified with an AUC (± 95% CI) = 0.96 ± 0.01; sensitivity of 90% ± 2%, specificity of 89% ± 2%VASARI features classified with an AUC = 0.78 ± 0.02; sensitivity of 72% ± 3%, specificity of 67% ±3%
Fukuma 201922To determine if integration of CNN deep learning with radiomic features improved classificationConventional radiomic features (± 95% CI): accuracy = 59.0 ± 9.0%; AUC = 0.656 ± 0.113CNN features: accuracy = 84.0 ± 9.3%; AUC = 0.868 ± 0.099CNN and conventional radiomic features: accuracy = 79.8 ± 11.0%; AUC = 0.861 ± 0.116