Prognostic Value of CT Radiomic Features in Resectable Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this work, we assess the reproducibility and prognostic value of CT-derived radiomic features for resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). Two radiologists contoured tumour regions on pre-operative CT of two cohorts from two institutions undergoing curative-intent surgical resection for PDAC. The first (n = 30) and second cohorts (n = 68) were used for training and validation of proposed prognostic model for overall survival (OS), respectively. Radiomic features were extracted using PyRadiomics library and those with weak inter-reader reproducibility were excluded. Through Cox regression models, significant features were identified in the training cohort and retested in the validation cohort. Significant features were then fused via Cox regression to build a single radiomic signature in the training cohort, which was validated across readers in the validation cohort. Two radiomic features derived from Sum Entropy and Cluster Tendency features were both robust to inter-reader reproducibility and prognostic of OS across cohorts and readers. The radiomic signature showed prognostic value for OS in the validation cohort with hazard ratios of 1.56 (P = 0.005) and 1.35 (P = 0.022), for the first and second reader, respectively. CT-based radiomic features were shown to be prognostic in patients with resectable PDAC. These features may help stratify patients for neoadjuvant or alternative therapies.
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 | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".