3 research outputs found

    A comparison of non-negative matrix underapproximation methods for the decomposition of magnetic resonance spectroscopy data from human brain tumors

    Get PDF
    Altres ajuts: acords transformatius de la UABMagnetic resonance spectroscopy (MRS) is an MR technique that provides information about the biochemistry of tissues in a noninvasive way. MRS has been widely used for the study of brain tumors, both preoperatively and during follow-up. In this study, we investigated the performance of a range of variants of unsupervised matrix factorization methods of the non-negative matrix underapproximation (NMU) family, namely, sparse NMU, global NMU, and recursive NMU, and compared them with convex non-negative matrix factorization (C-NMF), which has previously shown a good performance on brain tumor diagnostic support problems using MRS data. The purpose of the investigation was 2-fold: first, to ascertain the differences among the sources extracted by these methods; and second, to compare the influence of each method in the diagnostic accuracy of the classification of brain tumors, using them as feature extractors. We discovered that, first, NMU variants found meaningful sources in terms of biological interpretability, but representing parts of the spectrum, in contrast to C-NMF; and second, that NMU methods achieved better classification accuracy than C-NMF for the classification tasks when one class was not meningioma

    Using Single-Voxel Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy Data Acquired at 1.5T to Classify Multivoxel Data at 3T : A Proof-of-Concept Study

    Get PDF
    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
    corecore