Integration of Radiomic and Multi-omic Analyses Predicts Survival of Newly Diagnosed IDH1 Wild-Type Glioblastoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Predictors of patient outcome derived from gene methylation, mutation, or expression are severely limited in IDH1 wild-type glioblastoma (GBM). Radiomics offers an alternative insight into tumor characteristics which can provide complementary information for predictive models. The study aimed to evaluate whether predictive models which integrate radiomic, gene, and clinical (multi-omic) features together offer an increased capacity to predict patient outcome. A dataset comprising 200 IDH1 wild-type GBM patients, derived from The Cancer Imaging Archive (TCIA) (n = 71) and the McGill University Health Centre (n = 129), was used in this study. Radiomic features (n = 45) were extracted from tumor volumes then correlated to biological variables and clinical outcomes. By performing 10-fold cross-validation (n = 200) and utilizing independent training/testing datasets (n = 100/100), an integrative model was derived from multi-omic features and evaluated for predictive strength. Integrative models using a limited panel of radiomic (sum of squares variance, large zone/low gray emphasis, autocorrelation), clinical (therapy type, age), genetic (CIC, PIK3R1, FUBP1) and protein expression (p53, vimentin) yielded a maximal AUC of 78.24% (p = 2.9 × 10−5). We posit that multi-omic models using the limited set of ‘omic’ features outlined above can improve capacity to predict the outcome for IDH1 wild-type GBM 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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".