MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2303551175 · doi:10.1117/12.2209121

Phenotypic characterization of glioblastoma identified through shape descriptors

2016· article· en· W2303551175 on OpenAlexaff
Ahmad Chaddad, Christian Desrosiers, Matthew Toews

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging
Canadian institutionsÉcole de Technologie Supérieure
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhenotypeGlioblastomaFluid-attenuated inversion recoveryPathologyArtificial intelligenceComputational biologyMagnetic resonance imagingPattern recognition (psychology)BiologyMedicineComputer scienceCancer researchRadiologyGeneticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper proposes quantitatively describing the shape of glioblastoma (GBM) tissue phenotypes as a set of shape features derived from segmentations, for the purposes of discriminating between GBM phenotypes and monitoring tumor progression. GBM patients were identified from the Cancer Genome Atlas, and quantitative MR imaging data were obtained from the Cancer Imaging Archive. Three GBM tissue phenotypes are considered including necrosis, active tumor and edema/invasion. Volumetric tissue segmentations are obtained from registered T1˗weighted (T1˗WI) postcontrast and fluid-attenuated inversion recovery (FLAIR) MRI modalities. Shape features are computed from respective tissue phenotype segmentations, and a Kruskal-Wallis test was employed to select features capable of classification with a significance level of <i>p</i> &lt; 0.05. Several classifier models are employed to distinguish phenotypes, where a leave-one-out cross-validation was performed. Eight features were found statistically significant for classifying GBM phenotypes with <i>p</i> &lt;0.05, orientation is uninformative. Quantitative evaluations show the SVM results in the highest classification accuracy of 87.50%, sensitivity of 94.59% and specificity of 92.77%. In summary, the shape descriptors proposed in this work show high performance in predicting GBM tissue phenotypes. They are thus closely linked to morphological characteristics of GBM phenotypes and could potentially be used in a computer assisted labeling system.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.174
Threshold uncertainty score0.735

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.230 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations6
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIESame topicRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical ImagingFrench-language works237,207