Evidence Hub

An Explainable MRI-Radiomic Quantum Neural Network to Differentiate Between Large Brain Metastases and High-Grade Glioma Using Quantum Annealing for Feature Selection

Felefly T, Roukoz C, Fares G, Achkar S, Yazbeck S, Meyer P, Kordahi M, Azoury F et al.

Journal of digital imaging, 2023

423 participants

Abstract

Solitary large brain metastases (LBM) and high-grade gliomas (HGG) are sometimes hard to differentiate on MRI. The management differs significantly between these two entities, and non-invasive methods that help differentiate between them are eagerly needed to avoid potentially morbid biopsies and surgical procedures. We explore herein the performance and interpretability of an MRI-radiomics variational quantum neural network (QNN) using a quantum-annealing mutual-information (MI) feature selection approach. We retrospectively included 423 patients with HGG and LBM (> 2 cm) who had a contrast-enhanced T1-weighted (CE-T1) MRI between 2012 and 2019. After exclusion, 72 HGG and 129 LBM were kept. Tumors were manually segmented, and a 5-mm peri-tumoral ring was created. MRI images were pre-processed, and 1813 radiomic features were extracted. A set of best features based on MI was selected. MI and conditional-MI were embedded into a quadratic unconstrained binary optimization (QUBO) formulation that was mapped to an Ising-model and submitted to D'Wave's quantum annealer to solve for the best combination of 10 features. The 10 selected features were embedded into a 2-qubits QNN using PennyLane library. The model was evaluated for balanced-accuracy (bACC) and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC-AUC) on the test set. The model performance was benchmarked against two classical models: dense neural networks (DNN) and extreme gradient boosting (XGB). Shapley…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 423 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free