Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 21, 2026

Co-analysis of Brain Structure and Function using fMRI and Diffusion-weighted Imaging
Published on: November 8, 2012
Combining Multi-Shell Diffusion with Conventional MRI Improves Molecular Diagnosis of Diffuse Gliomas with Deep
Golestan Karami1,2, Riccardo Pascuzzo3, Matteo Figini4
1Department of Neuroscience, Imaging and Clinical Sciences, Gabriele D'Annunzio University, 66100 Chieti, Italy.
Abstract:
The WHO classification since 2016 confirms the importance of integrating molecular diagnosis for prognosis and treatment decisions of adult-type diffuse gliomas. This motivates the development of non-invasive diagnostic methods, in particular MRI, to predict molecular subtypes of gliomas before surgery. At present, this development has been focused on deep-learning (DL)-based predictive models, mainly with conventional MRI (cMRI), despite recent studies suggesting multi-shell diffusion MRI (dMRI) offers complementary information to cMRI for molecular subtyping. The aim of this work is to evaluate the potential benefit of combining cMRI and multi-shell dMRI in DL-based models. A model implemented with deep residual neural networks was chosen as an illustrative example. Using a dataset of 146 patients with gliomas (from grade 2 to 4), the model was trained and evaluated, with nested cross-validation, on pre-operative cMRI, multi-shell dMRI, and a combination of the two for the following classification tasks: (i) IDH-mutation; (ii) 1p/19q-codeletion; and (iii) three molecular subtypes according to WHO 2021. The results from a subset of 100 patients with lower grades gliomas (2 and 3 according to WHO 2016) demonstrated that combining cMRI and multi-shell dMRI enabled the best performance in predicting IDH mutation and 1p/19q codeletion, achieving an accuracy of 75 ± 9% in predicting the IDH-mutation status, higher than using cMRI and multi-shell dMRI separately (both 70 ± 7%). Similar findings were observed for predicting the 1p/19q-codeletion status, with the accuracy from combining cMRI and multi-shell dMRI (72 ± 4%) higher than from each modality used alone (cMRI: 65 ± 6%; multi-shell dMRI: 66 ± 9%). These findings remain when we considered all 146 patients for predicting the IDH status (combined: 81 ± 5% accuracy; cMRI: 74 ± 5%; multi-shell dMRI: 73 ± 6%) and for the diagnosis of the three molecular subtypes according to WHO 2021 (combined: 60 ± 5%; cMRI: 57 ± 8%; multi-shell dMRI: 56 ± 7%). Together, these findings suggest that combining cMRI and multi-shell dMRI can offer higher accuracy than using each modality alone for predicting the IDH and 1p/19q status and in diagnosing the three molecular subtypes with DL-based models.

