↓ Skip to main content

Preoperative and postoperative prediction of long-term meningioma outcomes

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, September 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (78th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
3 X users

Readers on

mendeley
56 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
Preoperative and postoperative prediction of long-term meningioma outcomes
Published in
PLOS ONE, September 2018
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0204161
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Meningiomas are stratified according to tumor grade and extent of resection, often in isolation of other clinical variables. Here, we use machine learning (ML) to integrate demographic, clinical, radiographic and pathologic data to develop predictive models for meningioma outcomes. We developed a comprehensive database containing information from 235 patients who underwent surgery for 257 meningiomas at a single institution from 1990 to 2015. The median follow-up was 4.3 years, and resection specimens were re-evaluated according to current diagnostic criteria, revealing 128 WHO grade I, 104 grade II and 25 grade III meningiomas. A series of ML algorithms were trained and tuned by nested resampling to create models based on preoperative features, conventional postoperative features, or both. We compared different algorithms' accuracy as well as the unique insights they offered into the data. Machine learning models restricted to preoperative information, such as patient demographics and radiographic features, had similar accuracy for predicting local failure (AUC = 0.74) or overall survival (AUC = 0.68) as models based on meningioma grade and extent of resection (AUC = 0.73 and AUC = 0.72, respectively). Integrated models incorporating all available demographic, clinical, radiographic and pathologic data provided the most accurate estimates (AUC = 0.78 and AUC = 0.74, respectively). From these models, we developed decision trees and nomograms to estimate the risks of local failure or overall survival for meningioma patients. Clinical information has been historically underutilized in the prediction of meningioma outcomes. Predictive models trained on preoperative clinical data perform comparably to conventional models trained on meningioma grade and extent of resection. Combination of all available information can help stratify meningioma patients more accurately.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 56 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 56 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 9%
Student > Master 5 9%
Student > Postgraduate 5 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 5%
Other 8 14%
Unknown 20 36%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 19 34%
Physics and Astronomy 5 9%
Engineering 3 5%
Neuroscience 2 4%
Arts and Humanities 1 2%
Other 3 5%
Unknown 23 41%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 06 March 2019.
All research outputs
#4,727,406
of 28,818,276 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#55,899
of 249,093 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#75,525
of 357,997 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#821
of 3,372 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 28,818,276 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 249,093 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 357,997 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3,372 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.