MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1970544808 · doi:10.1117/12.2006456

CT image feature analysis in distinguishing radiation fibrosis from tumour recurrence after stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) for lung cancer: a preliminary study

2013· article· en· W1970544808 on OpenAlexaff
Sarah A. Mattonen, David A. Palma, Cornelis J.A. Haasbeek, Suresh Senan, Aaron D. Ward

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLung Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSABR volatility modelRadiation therapyLung cancerRadiographyRadiologyMedicineAblative caseGround-glass opacityNuclear medicineStereotactic radiation therapyRadiosurgeryCancerPathologyInternal medicineMathematicsAdenocarcinoma

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Radiation induced lung injury (RILI) is a common finding following lung radiotherapy and results in radiographic changes on computed tomography (CT). Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) treats the tumour to a highly conformal dose with large doses/fraction, which can result in benign, tumour-mimicking radiographic changes. Our purpose was to determine the ability of quantitative measures of post-SABR radiographic changes to distinguish the subject groups (recurrence vs. RILI) at several time points. Two regions were manually contoured on each follow-up CT: consolidative changes and ground glass opacity (GGO). A peri-tumoural region of GGO was also taken around the consolidative changes. At 9 months, patients with recurrence had significantly denser consolidative areas compared to patients with RILI (p=.046) and significantly increased variability of CT densities in the GGO areas (p=.0078). The variability of CT density in a peri-tumoural region of 4 mm thickness was also significant at 9 months post-treatment (p=.0499). Our preliminary study of classification accuracy based on these measures showed that variability of the GGO CT density was the best predictor with a cross validation error of 26.1%, demonstrating that further refinement of the features and classifier may soon lead to a clinically useful computer-aided diagnosis tool. These results suggest the future potential to distinguish patients with recurrence from those RILI at 9 months post-SABR based on appearance characteristics within the consolidative, GGO, and peri-tumoural regions. This could potentially allow for earlier salvage of patients with recurrence, and result in fewer investigations of benign RILI.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.260 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE→Same topicLung Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment→French-language works237,207→