MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2971002574 · doi:10.18632/oncotarget.26996

<i>A priori</i> prediction of breast tumour response to chemotherapy using quantitative ultrasound imaging and artificial neural networks

2019· article· en· W2971002574 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Hadi Tadayyon, Mehrdad J. Gangeh, Lakshmanan Sannachi, Maureen Trudeau, Kathleen I. Pritchard, Andrea Eisen, Nicole Look-Hong, Claire Holloway, Frances C. Wright, Eileen Rakovitch, Danny Vesprini, William T. Tran, Belinda Curpen, Gregory J. Czarnota

Bibliographic record

VenueOncotarget · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAI in cancer detection
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreUniversity of TorontoSunnybrook Health Science Centre
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of TorontoCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchTerry Fox Foundation
KeywordsMedicineArtificial neural networkUltrasoundChemotherapyOncologyRadiologyInternal medicineMachine learningComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

// Hadi Tadayyon 1 , 2 , Mehrdad Gangeh 1 , 2 , Lakshmanan Sannachi 1 , 2 , Maureen Trudeau 3 , Kathleen Pritchard 3 , Sonal Ghandi 3 , Andrea Eisen 3 , Nicole Look-Hong 4 , Claire Holloway 4 , Frances Wright 4 , Eileen Rakovitch 5 , 6 , Danny Vesprini 5 , 6 , William Tyler Tran 5 , 6 , Belinda Curpen 7 and Gregory Czarnota 1 , 2 , 3 , 5 , 6 1 Physical Sciences, Sunnybrook Research Institute, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, ON, Canada 2 Department of Medical Biophysics, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada 3 Division of Medical Oncology, Department of Medicine, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, ON, Canada 4 Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, ON, Canada 5 Department of Radiation Oncology, Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, ON, Canada 6 Department of Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada 7 Department of Medical Imaging, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, and Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada Correspondence to: Gregory Czarnota, email: gregory.czarnota@sunnybrook.ca Keywords: quantitative ultrasound; artificial neural networks; ultrasound spectroscopy; tumour response assessment; prognostic biomarker Received: November 26, 2018&emsp;&emsp;&emsp;&emsp; Accepted: May 13, 2019&emsp;&emsp;&emsp;&emsp; Published: June 11, 2019 ABSTRACT We demonstrate the clinical utility of combining quantitative ultrasound (QUS) imaging of the breast with an artificial neural network (ANN) classifier to predict the response of breast cancer patients to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) administration prior to the start of treatment. Using a 6 MHz ultrasound system, radiofrequency (RF) ultrasound data were acquired from 100 patients with biopsy-confirmed locally advanced breast cancer prior to the start of NAC. Quantitative ultrasound mean parameter intensity and texture features were computed from the tumour core and margin, and were compared to the clinical/pathological response and 5-year recurrence-free survival (RFS) of patients. A multi-parametric QUS model in conjunction with an ANN classifier predicted patient response with 96 &#x00B1; 6% accuracy, and a 0.96 &#x00B1; 0.08 area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), compared to 65 &#x00B1; 10 % accuracy and 0.67 &#x00B1; 0.14 AUC achieved using a K-Nearest Neighbour (KNN) algorithm. A separate ANN model predicted patient RFS with 85 &#x00B1; 7% accuracy, and a 0.89 &#x00B1; 0.11 AUC, whereas the KNN methodology achieved a 58 &#x00B1; 6 % accuracy and a 0.64 &#x00B1; 0.09 AUC. The application of ANN for classifying patient response based on tumour QUS features performs well in terms of predicting response to chemotherapy. The findings here provide a framework for developing personalized a priori chemotherapy selection for patients that are candidates for NAC, potentially resulting in improved patient treatment outcomes and prognosis.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.898
Threshold uncertainty score0.549

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.248 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations21
Published2019
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOncotargetSame topicAI in cancer detectionFrench-language works237,207