Imaging-based Biomarkers for Predicting and Evaluating Cancer Immunotherapy Response
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Proper patient selection for immunotherapy is critical, as certain tumor microenvironments are more permissible to therapy than others. Currently, the use of programmed cell death ligand-1 (PD-L1) and microsatellite instability high and/or mismatch repair deficiency are used as biomarkers for immunotherapy response. To improve tumor characterization, methodologies are being developed to combine imaging with tumor immune environment characterization. Imaging of tumors from immunotherapy responders and nonresponders with various imaging modalities has led to the development of criteria that could predict patient response to immunotherapy. Additionally, radiomics-based artificial intelligence methods are being used to characterize tumor microenvironments to predict and evaluate immunotherapy responses, as well as to predict risk of immune-related adverse events. Molecular imaging techniques are also being developed for various modalities to observe tumor expression of immunotherapy targets, such as PD-L1 and, to confirm the target is being expressed on resident tumors. In all, the advancements of imaging techniques to define tumor immunologic characteristics will help to stratify patients who are more likely to respond to immunotherapies. Keywords: Computer Aided Diagnosis (CAD), Computer Applications-Virtual Imaging, Efficacy Studies, MR-Imaging, Molecular Imaging-Cancer, Molecular Imaging-Immunotherapy, Molecular Imaging-Nanoparticles, Molecular Imaging-Probe Development, Molecular Imaging-Target Development, SPECT/CT © RSNA, 2019
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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".