Robust vs. Non-robust radiomic features: the quest for optimal machine learning models using phantom and clinical studies
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
PURPOSE: This study aimed to select robust features against lung motion in a phantom study and use them as input to feature selection algorithms and machine learning classifiers in a clinical study to predict the lymphovascular invasion (LVI) of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The results of robust features were also compared with conventional techniques without considering the robustness of radiomic features. METHODS: An in-house developed lung phantom was developed with two 22mm lesion sizes based on a clinical study. A specific motor was built to simulate motion in two orthogonal directions. Lesions of both clinical and phantom studies were segmented using a Fuzzy C-means-based segmentation algorithm. After inducing motion and extracting 105 radiomic features in 4 feature sets, including shape, first-, second-, and higher-order statistics features from each region of interest (ROI) of the phantom image, statistical analyses were performed to select robust features against motion. Subsequently, these robust features and a total of 105 radiomic features were extracted from 126 clinical data. Various feature selection (FS) and multiple machine learning (ML) classifiers were implemented to predict the LVI of NSCLC, followed by comparing the results of predicting LVI using robust features with common conventional techniques not considering the robustness of radiomic features. RESULTS: Our results demonstrated that selecting robust features as input to FS algorithms and ML classifiers surges the sensitivity, which has a gentle negative effect on the accuracy and the area under the curve (AUC) of predictions compared with commonly used methods in 12 of 15 outcomes. The top performance of the LVI prediction was achieved by the NB classifier and RFE FS without considering the robustness of radiomic features with 95% area under the curve of AUC, 67% accuracy, and 100% sensitivity. Moreover, the top performance of the LVI prediction using robust features belonged to the NB classifier and Boruta feature selection with 92% AUC, 86% accuracy, and 100% sensitivity. CONCLUSION: Robustness over various influential factors is critical and should be considered in a radiomic study. Selecting robust features is a solution to overcome the low reproducibility of radiomic features. Although setting robust features against motion in a phantom study has a minor negative impact on the accuracy and AUC of LVI prediction, it boosts the sensitivity of prediction to a large extent.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle