Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
This work presents a multimodal machine learning pipeline for brain lesion classification, fusing structural radiomic features from multi-sequence MRI (T2-FLAIR, T1-contrast) with metabolic features recovered from Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy (MRS) screenshots via a custom Optical Character Recognition (OCR) pipeline. The study draws on a clinical cohort of 55 patients (17 non-neoplastic, 38 neoplastic). MRI radiomics span first-order intensity statistics, Grey-Level Co-occurrence Matrix (GLCM) texture, morphological shape, and contrast-enhancement ratios, while MRS metabolites (Cho, Cr, NAA, and their ratios) are lifted from rendered spectra through Tesseract OCR with multi-region cropping and Lanczos upsampling. Features are evaluated under a leakage-controlled Leave-One-Out Cross-Validation (LOOCV) protocol with in-fold imputation, feature selection and normalization, using the classifier’s default decision threshold. The primary, bias-corrected performance estimate comes from nested LOOCV, in which classifier family and feature count are chosen using training data only: the multimodal pipeline reaches 82.0% accuracy. The best fixed configuration (Random Forest, k = 3) reaches 85.5% accuracy (47/55) and AUC = 0.82, but because it is selected on the same data it is scored on, it is reported as an exploratory, optimistic figure. The comparison model, which uses MRI-derived features without OCR-recovered metabolites, reaches 78.2% at its own best configuration, so the best-configuration gain is +7.3 percentage points and the nested estimate exceeds that baseline by +3.8 points. The two strongest discriminators are log NAA ( F = 16.01) and log Cho ( F = 12.89). The best-configuration result holds under 1,000-permutation testing (random-label mean 55.0%) and McNemar’s exact test ( p = 0.05, borderline). At N = 55, and with diagnostic labels that themselves drew on MRS, these results stand as proof-of-concept: OCR-recovered MRS metabolites are informative for reproducing expert diagnostic judgment beyond what MRI-derived features supply alone.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Balaji et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: