Radiomics analysis at PET/CT contributes to prognosis of recurrence and survival in lung cancer treated with stereotactic body radiotherapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We sought to quantify contribution of radiomics and SUVmax at PET/CT to predict clinical outcome in lung cancer patients treated with stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT). 150 patients with 172 lung cancers, who underwent SBRT were retrospectively included. Radiomics were applied on PET/CT. Principal components (PC) for 42 CT and PET-derived features were examined to determine which ones accounted for most of variability. Survival analysis quantified ability of radiomics and SUVmax to predict outcome. PCs including homogeneity, size, maximum intensity, mean and median gray level, standard deviation, entropy, kurtosis, skewness, morphology and asymmetry were included in prediction models for regional control (RC) [PC4-HR:0.38, p = 0.02], distant control (DC) [PC4-HR:0.51, p = 0.02 and PC1-HR:1.12, p = 0.01], recurrence free probability (RFP) [PC1-HR:1.08, p = 0.04], disease specific survival (DSS) [PC2-HR:1.34, p = 0.03 and PC3-HR:0.64, p = 0.02] and overall survival (OS) [PC4-HR:0.45, p = 0.004 and PC3-HR:0.74, p = 0.02]. In combined analysis with SUVmax, PC1 lost predictive ability over SUVmax for RFP [HR:1.1, p = 0.04] and DC [HR:1.13, p = 0.002], while PC4 remained predictive of DC independent of SUVmax [HR:0.5, p = 0.02]. Radiomics remained the only predictors of OS, DSS and RC. Neither SUVmax nor radiomics predicted recurrence free survival. Radiomics on PET/CT provided complementary information for prediction of control and survival in SBRT-treated lung cancer 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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".