Dual-Energy CT Texture Analysis With Machine Learning for the Evaluation and Characterization of Cervical Lymphadenopathy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine whether machine learning assisted-texture analysis of multi-energy virtual monochromatic image (VMI) datasets from dual-energy CT (DECT) can be used to differentiate metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) lymph nodes from lymphoma, inflammatory, or normal lymph nodes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective evaluation of 412 cervical nodes from 5 different patient groups (50 patients in total) having undergone DECT of the neck between 2013 and 2015 was performed: (1) HNSCC with pathology proven metastatic adenopathy, (2) HNSCC with pathology proven benign nodes (controls for (1)), (3) lymphoma, (4) inflammatory, and (5) normal nodes (controls for (3) and (4)). Texture analysis was performed with TexRAD® software using two independent sets of contours to assess the impact of inter-rater variation. Two machine learning algorithms (Random Forests (RF) and Gradient Boosting Machine (GBM)) were used with independent training and testing sets and determination of accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and AUC. RESULTS: In the independent testing (prediction) sets, the accuracy for distinguishing different groups of pathologic nodes or normal nodes ranged between 80 and 95%. The models generated using texture data extracted from the independent contour sets had substantial to almost perfect agreement. The accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV for correctly classifying a lymph node as malignant (i.e. metastatic HNSCC or lymphoma) versus benign were 92%, 91%, 93%, 95%, 87%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Machine learning assisted-DECT texture analysis can help distinguish different nodal pathology and normal nodes with a high accuracy.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".