Categorizing Extent of Tumor Cell Death Response to Cancer Therapy Using Quantitative Ultrasound Spectroscopy and Maximum Mean Discrepancy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Quantitative ultrasound (QUS) spectroscopic techniques in conjunction with maximum mean discrepancy (MMD) have been proposed to detect, and to classify noninvasively the levels of cell death in response to cancer therapy administration in tumor models. Evaluation of xenograft tumor responses to cancer treatments were carried out using conventional-frequency ultrasound at different times after chemotherapy exposure. Ultrasound data were analyzed using spectroscopic techniques and multi-parametric QUS spectral maps were generated. MMD was applied as a distance criterion, measuring alterations in each tumor in response to chemotherapy, and the extent of cell death was classified into less/more than 20% and 40% categories. Statistically significant differences were observed between "pre-" and "post-treatment" groups at different times after chemotherapy exposure, suggesting a high capability of proposed framework for detecting tumor response noninvasively. Promising results were also obtained for categorizing the extent of cell death response in each tumor using the proposed framework, with gold standard histological quantification of cell death as ground truth. The best classification results were obtained using MMD when applied on histograms of QUS parametric maps. In this case, classification accuracies of 84.7% and 88.2% were achieved for categorizing extent of tumor cell death into less/more than 20% and 40%, respectively.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".