MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2432034468 · doi:10.1093/neuonc/now065.18

AT-19SYSTEMATIC RADIOLOGICAL PHENOTYPING OF ATYPICAL TERATOID RHABDOID TUMOURS USING LANGUAGE MODELLED MACHINE LEARNING APPROACHES

2016· article· en· W2432034468 on OpenAlexaff
John‐Paul Kilday, Michal Zápotocký, John Keane, Dimitrios Karanopoulos, Suzanne Laughlin, Annie Huang, Stavros Stivaros

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuro-Oncology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicChromatin Remodeling and Cancer
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRadiological weaponComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceNatural language processingMedicineRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Despite multiparametric MRI, uncertainty remains in the radiological phenotyping of intracranial tumours and their specific molecular subtype. We introduce a systematic, reproducible, descriptive imaging model that integrates MRI imaging metrics into one data repository. This dataset underpins a radiological decision support system (DSS) that informs on radiological phenotyping of childhood intracranial tumours and, we propose, informs on their underlying biological makeup. METHODS: Using atypical teratoid rhabdoid tumours (ATRTs) as a test case, a language based systematic analysis and scoring system modelled the imaging phenotype and was correlated with published transcriptional ATRT sub-grouping for each case. Machine learning techniques were employed to drive a classification DSS. RESULTS: In total 35 tumours were analysed of which 46% were male with an age range of 0.14 - 15.6 years. There were 16 supratentorial, 18 infratentorial and 1 spinal tumour. The descriptive model contained 30 major attributes which accommodated 127 variables giving just under 1 million variable permutations per patient. Multiple machine learning approaches were then employed for stratification into ASCL1 positive and negative subtypes. These techniques included neural networks, decision tree stratification, support vector machine analysis and Bayesian networks. CONCLUSIONS: This study presents the first systematic descriptive model of ATRTs integrating any radiological metric to drive a DSS for phenotyping the biological subset of the tumour type. Validation will require the analysis of larger numbers of scans from patients with tumours of known and unknown phenotype. These systems have significant potential as diagnostic and decision making clinical aids.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.315
Threshold uncertainty score0.580

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.239 · 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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeuro-OncologySame topicChromatin Remodeling and CancerFrench-language works237,207