Breast Cancer Treatment Response Monitoring Using Quantitative Ultrasound and Texture Analysis: Comparative Analysis of Analytical Models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to develop computational algorithms to best determine tumor responses early after the start of neoadjuvant chemotherapy, based on quantitative ultrasound (QUS) and textural analysis in patients with locally advanced breast cancer (LABC). METHODS: A total of 100 LABC patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy were included in this study. Breast tumors were scanned with a clinical ultrasound system prior to treatment, during the first, fourth and eighth weeks of treatment, and prior to surgery. QUS parameters were calculated from ultrasound radio frequency data within tumor regions. Texture features were extracted from each QUS parametric map. Patients were classified into two groups based on identified clinical/pathological response: responders and non-responders. In order to differentiate treatment responders, three multi-feature response classification algorithms, namely a linear discriminant, a k-nearest-neighbor and a nonlinear support vector machine classifier were compared. RESULTS: All algorithms distinguished responders and non-responders with accuracies ranging between 68% and 92%. In particular, support vector machine performed the best in differentiating responders from non-responders with accuracies of 78%, 90% and 92% at weeks 1, 4 and 8 after the start of treatment, respectively. The most relevant features in separating the two response groups at early stages (weeks 1and 4) were texture features and at a later stage (week 8) were mean QUS parameters, particularly ultrasound backscatter intensity-based parameters. CONCLUSION: An early stage treatment response prediction model developed by quantitative ultrasound and texture analysis combined with modern computational methods permits offering effective alternatives to standard treatment for refractory patients.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".