MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2808888481 · doi:10.1016/s0167-8140(18)31291-x

PO-0981: Results from the Image Biomarker Standardisation Initiative

2018· article· en· W2808888481 on OpenAlexaff
Alex Zwanenburg, Mahmoud A. Abdalah, Aditya Apte, Saeed Ashrafinia, J. Beukinga, Marta Bogowicz, Christine Dinh, Michael Goetz, Mathieu Hatt, Ralph T. H. Leijenaar, Jacopo Lenkowicz, Olivier Morin, Arvind Rao, Jairo Socarras Fernandez, Martin Vallières, Lisanne V. van Dijk, Jennifer van Griethuysen, Floris H. P. van Velden, P. Whybra, Esther G.C. Troost, Corinna Richter, Steffen Löck

Bibliographic record

VenueRadiotherapy and Oncology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersEngineering and Physical Sciences Research Council
KeywordsBiomarkerComputer scienceChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ResultsThe PT model for LRC comprised 3 radiomic features.The mixed model used 4 PT radiomic features (from LC prediction), as a preliminary prediction, combined with 4 LN radiomic features.Both models were significantly associated with LRC in the training and validation cohorts (CI_training_PT = 0.71, CI_validaton_PT = 0.70, CI_training_mixed = 0.80, CI_validaton_mixed = 0.74).The mixed model showed significantly higher performance than the PT model for prediction of LRC (p < 0.01).In the combination of PT radiomics and clinical nodal status (TNM) for prediction of LRC, the nodal status was not a significant predictor. ConclusionThis study shows for the first time that modeling using combined radiomics of the primary tumor and involved lymph nodes improves prediction of the composite endpoint LRC in comparison to primary tumor radiomics only.

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)0.025
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.030
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.132

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0250.030
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0030.006
Research integrity0.0040.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.005

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.329 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations40
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

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