Decoding and Systematization of Medical Imaging Features of Multiple Human Malignancies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose To summarize the data of previously reported medical imaging features on human malignancies to provide a scientific basis for more credible imaging feature selection for future studies. Materials and Methods A search was performed in PubMed from database inception through March 23, 2018, for studies clearly stating the decoding of medical imaging features for malignancy-related objectives and/or hypotheses. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale was used for quality assessment of the included studies. Unsupervised hierarchical clustering was performed on the manually extracted features from each included study to identify the application rules of medical imaging features across human malignancies. CT images of 1000 retrospective patients with non–small cell lung cancer were used to reveal a pattern for the value distribution of complex texture features. Results A total of 5026 imaging features of malignancies affecting 20 parts of the human body from 930 original articles were collated and assessed in this study. A meta-feature construct was proposed to facilitate the investigation of details of any high-dimensional complex imaging features of malignancy. A correlation atlas was constructed to clarify the general rules of applying medical imaging features to the analysis of human malignancy. Assessment of this data revealed a pattern of value distributions of the most commonly reported texture features across human malignancies. Furthermore, the significant expression of the gene mutational signature 1B across human cancer was highly consistent with the presence of the run length imaging feature across different human malignancy types. Conclusion The results of this study may facilitate more credible imaging feature selection in all oncology tasks across a wide spectrum of human malignancies and help to reduce bias and redundancies in future medical imaging studies. Keywords: Computer Aided Diagnosis (CAD), Computer Applications-General (Informatics), Evidence Based Medicine, Informatics, Research Design, Statistics, Technology Assessment Supplemental material is available for this article. Published under a CC BY 4.0 license.
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 | 0.017 | 0.077 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.024 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".