MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2055221833 · doi:10.3747/co.v17i1.394

Application of Machine Learning Methodology for Pet-Based Definition of Lung Cancer

2010· article· en· W2055221833 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Aliaksei Kerhet, C. Small, Harvey Quon, T. Riauka, Leendert Schrader, Rebecca Greiner, Don Yee, A. McEwan, Wilson Roa

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Oncology · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging
Canadian institutionsAlberta Glycomics CentreUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaAlberta Cancer Foundation
KeywordsJaccard indexStandardized uptake valueNuclear medicinePositron emission tomographyLung cancerMedicineSegmentationRadiation therapyRadiation treatment planningComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceMedical physicsPattern recognition (psychology)RadiologyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We applied a learning methodology framework to assist in the threshold-based segmentation of non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) tumours in positron-emission tomography-computed tomography (PET-CT) imaging for use in radiotherapy planning. Gated and standard free-breathing studies of two patients were independently analysed (four studies in total). Each study had a pet-ct and a treatment-planning ct image. The reference gross tumour volume (GTV) was identified by two experienced radiation oncologists who also determined reference standardized uptake value (SUV) thresholds that most closely approximated the GTV contour on each slice. A set of uptake distribution-related attributes was calculated for each PET slice. A machine learning algorithm was trained on a subset of the PET slices to cope with slice-to-slice variation in the optimal suv threshold: that is, to predict the most appropriate suv threshold from the calculated attributes for each slice. The algorithm's performance was evaluated using the remainder of the pet slices. A high degree of geometric similarity was achieved between the areas outlined by the predicted and the reference SUV thresholds (Jaccard index exceeding 0.82). No significant difference was found between the gated and the free-breathing results in the same patient. In this preliminary work, we demonstrated the potential applicability of a machine learning methodology as an auxiliary tool for radiation treatment planning in NSCLC.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.118
GPT teacher head0.473
Teacher spread0.355 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations18
Published2010
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent OncologySame topicRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical ImagingFrench-language works237,207