MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2918339201

Dependency of a validated radiomics signature on tumor volume and potential corrections

2018· article· en· W2918339201 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Martin Vallières, Dimitris Visvikis, Mathieu Hatt

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRadiomicsCancerConcordanceLung cancerMedicineNuclear medicineRadiologyOncologyInternal medicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

640 Purpose: Radiomics is foreseen as an essential prognostic tool for cancer risk assessment. The radiomics signature described in Aerts et al. (Nat. Commun. 2014) contains four features (1st order intensity, geometrical shape and higher order texture in image and in the wavelet domain): energy, compactness, grey-level non-uniformity (GLNU), and GLNU_HLH (GLNU in high-low-high subband). This signature was derived from pre-treatment CT scans of 422 lung cancer patients and subsequently tested in independent lung and head and neck (H&N) cancer cohorts (concordance-index of 0.65 in lung and 0.69 in both H&N cohorts). The authors claimed they had “shown for the first time the translational capability of radiomics in two cancer types” and that “radiomics quantifies a general prognostic cancer phenotype that likely can broadly be applied to other cancer types”. We investigated the dependency of the signature on tumour volume and suggest modifications to reduce it. Material and Methods: We extracted the features of the radiomics signature from both PET and CT components of PET/CT images of a multi-centric (4 different hospitals in Quebec) cohort of 300 H&N cancer patients. Absolute Spearman rank correlation (rs) was calculated between each of the four features and tumour volume. In order to reduce the observed dependency of the radiomic signature with tumour volume, we suggest alternative calculations for the shape and higher order features (see supplemental material). Results: Rs in PET (respectively CT) were 0.73 (resp. 0.71), 0.98 (resp. 0.94), 0.99 (resp. 0.98) and 0.89 (resp. 0.95) for energy, compactness, GLNU and GLNU_HLH respectively, showing great dependency of the radiomics signature on tumour volume. Using the revised calculations led to significantly lower rs values in PET (resp. CT) of 0.57 (resp. 0.50), 0.31 (resp. 0.15) and 0.11 (resp. 0.18) for compactness, GLNU and GLNU_HLH. Conclusions: Although the prognostic value of the radiomics signature was demonstrated in two cancer types in Aerts et al., we suggest that this translational capability of radiomics may have been primarily due to the fact that tumour volume is a strong prognostic factor in both cancer types. Indeed, according to the supplemental material of Aerts et al., concordance-index of volume alone was very close to that of the radiomics signature with 0.63 in lung and 0.68 and 0.65 in the two H&N cohorts. Further work is warranted to verify the translational capability of radiomics to different cancer types. Our first step will consist in evaluating the prognostic and translational value of the signature with revised calculations in both pathologies.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.687
Threshold uncertainty score0.547

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.258 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations5
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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