Meningiomas are common primary brain tumors, and their accurate preoperative grading is crucial for treatment planning. This study aimed to evaluate the value of radiomics and clinical imaging features in predicting the histologic grade of meningiomas from preoperative MRI. We retrospectively reviewed patients with intracranial meningiomas from two hospitals. Preoperative MRIs were analyzed for tumor and edema volumes, enhancement patterns, margins, and tumor–brain interfaces. Radiomics features were extracted, and machine learning models were employed to predict meningioma grades. A total of 212 patients were included. In the training group (Hospital 1), significant differences were observed between low-grade and high-grade meningiomas in terms of tumor volume (p = 0.012), edema volume (p = 0.004), enhancement (p = 0.001), margin (p < 0.001), and tumor–brain interface (p < 0.001). Five radiomics features were selected for model development. The prediction model for radiomics features demonstrated an average validation accuracy of 0.74, while the model for clinical imaging features showed an average validation accuracy of 0.69. When applied to external test data (Hospital 2), the radiomics model achieved an area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUC) of 0.72 and accuracy of 0.69, while the clinical imaging model achieved an AUC of 0.82 and accuracy of 0.81. An improved performance was obtained from the model constructed by combining radiomics and clinical imaging features. In the combined model, the AUC and accuracy for meningioma grading were 0.86 and 0.73, respectively. In conclusion, this study demonstrates the potential value of radiomics and clinical imaging features in predicting the histologic grade of meningiomas. The combination of both radiomics and clinical imaging features achieved the highest AUC among the models. Therefore, the combined model of radiomics and clinical imaging features may offer a more effective tool for predicting clinical outcomes in meningioma patients.

Background: Large language models (LLMs) may assist radiologists in interpreting brain tumor MRI. We compared the diagnostic accuracy of ChatGPT-4o and Claude 3.5 Sonnet with that of board-certified radiologists and trainees, and evaluated whether LLM assistance could enhance diagnostic performance. Methods: A total of 127 histologically confirmed brain tumor cases were included. Two LLMs analyzed representative MRI images together with structured radiologic reports, whereas two board-certified radiologists and three trainees reviewed representative images with basic demographic information only. All participants generated up to three differential diagnoses per case. The accuracy of the primary diagnosis and the accuracy of the top-three differential diagnoses were calculated and compared. Following the initial readings, LLM-generated differential diagnoses were provided to the readers, and their post-assistance diagnostic performance was re-evaluated. Results: Claude 3.5 Sonnet achieved a primary diagnostic accuracy of 50.4% and a top-three differential accuracy of 85.0%, comparable to ChatGPT-4o (44.9% and 82.7%, respectively). Radiologists demonstrated a higher primary diagnostic accuracy (69.3%, p < 0.001) compared to LLMs, but a similar top-three differential accuracy (80.7%). In contrast, trainees showed a primary diagnostic accuracy (48.0%) comparable to LLMs, but a lower top-three differential accuracy (62.5%) than LLMs. With LLM assistance, radiologists exhibited a significant improvement in the top-three differential accuracy (from 80.7% to 90.2%, p < 0.001), and trainees showed significant improvements in both the primary and top-three differential accuracy (from 48.0% to 58.8%, p < 0.001, and from 62.5% to 81.1%, p < 0.001, respectively). Conclusion: LLMs demonstrated the ability to expand differential diagnostic considerations when operating on structured imaging inputs. LLM assistance was associated with improved trainee performance in this constrained experimental setting. These findings should be interpreted cautiously and require validation under balanced input conditions and clinically realistic workflows.