Learning from scanners: Bias reduction and feature correction in radiomics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Radiomics are quantitative features extracted from medical images. Many radiomic features depend not only on tumor properties, but also on non-tumor related factors such as scanner signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), reconstruction kernel and other image acquisition settings. This causes undesirable value variations in the features and reduces the performance of prediction models. In this paper, we investigate whether we can use phantom measurements to characterize and correct for the scanner SNR dependence. METHODS: We used a phantom with 17 regions of interest (ROI) to investigate the influence of different SNR values. CT scans were acquired with 9 different exposure settings. We developed an additive correction model to reduce scanner SNR influence. RESULTS: Sixty-two of 92 radiomic features showed high variance due to the scanner SNR. Of these 62 features, 47 showed at least a factor 2 significant standard deviation reduction by using the additive correction model. We assessed the clinical relevance of radiomics instability by using a 221 NSCLC patient cohort measured with the same scanner. CONCLUSIONS: Phantom measurements show that roughly two third of the radiomic features depend on the exposure setting of the scanner. The dependence can be modeled and corrected significantly reducing the variation in feature values with at least a factor of 2. More complex models will likely increase the correctability. Scanner SNR correction will result in more reliable radiomics predictions in NSCLC.
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 | 0.005 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".