Skip to main content
. 2023 Jan 5;3(3):243–254. doi: 10.1007/s43657-022-00087-6

Table 2.

Performance metrics of the deep learning model on multi-modal MRI for glioma grading and molecular subtyping

Tasks Modality Accuracy Sensitivity Specificity PPV NPV F1-score
OGG/GBM A + B 0.80 ± 0.07 0.76 ± 0.16 0.87 ± 0.16 0.91 ± 0.11 0.67 ± 0.05 0.78 ± 0.09
A + C 0.83 ± 0.11 0.90 ± 0.12 0.73 ± 0.25 0.82 ± 0.15 0.82 ± 0.15 0.77 ± 0.17
B + C 0.77 ± 0.07 0.80 ± 0.19 0.73 ± 0.25 0.84 ± 0.13 0.74 ± 0.14 0.71 ± 0.12
A + B + C 0.89 ± 0.11 0.90 ± 0.12 0.87 ± 0.16 0.91 ± 0.11 0.82 ± 0.15 0.87 ± 0.11
LGG/HGG A + B 0.77 ± 0.11 0.71 ± 0.19 0.87 ± 0.16 0.89 ± 0.14 0.64 ± 0.08 0.76 ± 0.12
A + C 0.74 ± 0.14 0.76 ± 0.16 0.73 ± 0.25 0.81 ± 0.17 0.62 ± 0.10 0.72 ± 0.17
B + C 0.83 ± 0.11 0.86 ± 0.20 0.80 ± 0.27 0.89 ± 0.14 0.79 ± 0.18 0.77 ± 0.17
A + B + C 0.86 ± 0.09 0.91 ± 0.11 0.80 ± 0.27 0.89 ± 0.14 0.82 ± 0.15 0.81 ± 0.17
IDH1(+)/(−) A + B 0.69 ± 0.11 0.75 ± 0.22 0.60 ± 0.25 0.75 ± 0.14 0.65 ± 0.18 0.60 ± 0.12
A + C 0.80 ± 0.07 0.86 ± 0.12 0.73 ± 0.25 0.84 ± 0.14 0.75 ± 0.13 0.75 ± 0.14
B + C 0.80 ± 0.07 0.81 ± 0.19 0.80 ± 0.27 0.84 ± 0.13 0.74 ± 0.14 0.74 ± 0.14
A + B + C 0.89 ± 0.11 0.81 ± 0.19 1.00 ± 0.00 1.00 ± 0.00 0.80 ± 0.17 0.85 ± 0.14
ATRX(−)/(+) A + B 0.51 ± 0.15 0.55 ± 0.19 0.47 ± 0.16 0.57 ± 0.14 0.45 ± 0.15 0.48 ± 0.14
A + C 0.66 ± 0.15 0.65 ± 0.20 0.67 ± 0.30 0.72 ± 0.16 0.62 ± 0.22 0.60 ± 0.16
B + C 0.63 ± 0.15 0.60 ± 0.12 0.67 ± 0.30 0.75 ± 0.21 0.54 ± 0.14 0.59 ± 0.16
A + B + C 0.71 ± 0.13 0.70 ± 0.19 0.73 ± 0.25 0.81 ± 0.17 0.60 ± 0.10 0.67 ± 0.15

A T2 FLAIR, B T1WI + C, C QSM, OGG other grade glioma (grade II + III), GBM glioblastoma multiforme (grade IV), LGG low-grade glioma (grade II), HGG high-grade glioma (grade III + IV), IDH1(+) IDH1 mutation, IDH1(−) IDH1 wildtype, ATRX(−) ATRX expression loss, ATRX(+) ATRX retention, PPV positive predictive value, NPV negative predictive value

The best results are marked in bold