MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Radiomics Analysis for Clinical Decision Support in Nuclear Medicine

2019· review· en· W2951883912 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueSeminars in Nuclear Medicine · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRadiomicsMedicineWorkflowStandardizationDecision support systemClinical decision support systemMedical imagingMedical physicsPersonalized medicinePrecision medicineDecision analysisArtificial intelligenceBioinformaticsComputer sciencePathologyRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Radiomics - the high-throughput computation of quantitative image features extracted from medical imaging modalities- can be used to aid clinical decision support systems in order to build diagnostic, prognostic, and predictive models, which could ultimately improve personalized management based on individual characteristics. Various tools for radiomic features extraction are available, and the field gained a substantial scientific momentum for standardization and validation. Radiomics analysis of molecular imaging is expected to provide more comprehensive description of tissues than that of currently used parameters. We here review the workflow of radiomics, the challenges the field currently faces, and its potential for inclusion in clinical decision support systems to maximize disease characterization, and to improve clinical decision-making. We also present guidelines for standardization and implementation of radiomics in order to facilitate its transition to clinical use.

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.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesResearch integrity
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.898
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0100.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.447
Teacher spread0.377 · 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