The value of nodal information in predicting lung cancer relapse using 4DPET/4DCT
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: There is evidence that computed tomography (CT) and positron emission tomography (PET) imaging metrics are prognostic and predictive in nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treatment outcomes. However, few studies have explored the use of standardized uptake value (SUV)-based image features of nodal regions as predictive features. The authors investigated and compared the use of tumor and node image features extracted from the radiotherapy target volumes to predict relapse in a cohort of NSCLC patients undergoing chemoradiation treatment. METHODS: A prospective cohort of 25 patients with locally advanced NSCLC underwent 4DPET/4DCT imaging for radiation planning. Thirty-seven image features were derived from the CT-defined volumes and SUVs of the PET image from both the tumor and nodal target regions. The machine learning methods of logistic regression and repeated stratified five-fold cross-validation (CV) were used to predict local and overall relapses in 2 yr. The authors used well-known feature selection methods (Spearman's rank correlation, recursive feature elimination) within each fold of CV. Classifiers were ranked on their Matthew's correlation coefficient (MCC) after CV. Area under the curve, sensitivity, and specificity values are also presented. RESULTS: For predicting local relapse, the best classifier found had a mean MCC of 0.07 and was composed of eight tumor features. For predicting overall relapse, the best classifier found had a mean MCC of 0.29 and was composed of a single feature: the volume greater than 0.5 times the maximum SUV (N). CONCLUSIONS: The best classifier for predicting local relapse had only tumor features. In contrast, the best classifier for predicting overall relapse included a node feature. Overall, the methods showed that nodes add value in predicting overall relapse but not local relapse.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".