Application of Survival Tree Based on Texture Features Obtained through MRI of Patients with Brain Metastases from Breast Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The information obtained by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is considered to possess great potential for providing the prognosis of cancer patients, although not been established. The goal of this study was to evaluate the covariates of the texture patterns obtained from MRI scans of patients with breast cancer brain metastases, which influence the survival time prognosis. The data of forty patients were analyzed using 29 covariates. Twenty-six covariates, which are focused on the texture patterns, were calculated from the gray-level co-occurrence matrix and wavelet coefficients obtained by transform of preoperative T1-weighted MRI scans. The remaining three covariates were age, Karnofsky Performance Scale, and the indicator of whether solitary or multiple metastases were present. These covariates are commonly used as the prognostic factors in medical research. The tree structure prognosis models were constructed by applying the survival tree method to these covariates. The obtained survival trees separated the patients into two or three groups between which there was a statistically significant distance. For the purpose of comparison, Cox regression analyses were performed to determine which covariates showed significant predictive values. All the covariates selected in the Cox analysis and survival tree method were texture features only. In particular, the energy of the gray-level co-occurrence matrix and wavelet coefficients showed a high performance in tree structure analysis. From these results, we conclude that the features obtained from simple medical images can be used to estimate the prognosis of brain metastases patients.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".