Machine learning helps identifying volume-confounding effects in radiomics
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Highlighting the risk of biases in radiomics-based models will help improve their quality and increase usage as decision support systems in the clinic. In this study we use machine learning-based methods to identify the presence of volume-confounding effects in radiomics features. Methods 841 radiomics features were extracted from two retrospective publicly available datasets of lung and head neck cancers using open source software. Unsupervised hierarchical clustering and principal component analysis (PCA) identified relations between radiomics and clinical outcomes (overall survival). Bootstrapping techniques with logistic regression verified features' prognostic power and robustness. Results Over 80% of the features had large pairwise correlations. Nearly 30% of the features presented strong correlations with tumor volume. Using volume-independent features for clustering and PCA did not allow risk stratification of patients. Clinical predictors outperformed radiomics features in bootstrapping and logistic regression. Conclusions The adoption of safeguards in radiomics is imperative to improve the quality of radiomics studies. We proposed machine learning (ML) - based methods for robust radiomics signatures development.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 it