Fusion of FDG-PET Image and Clinical Features for Prediction of Lung Metastasis in Soft Tissue Sarcomas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Extracting massive features from images to quantify tumors provides a new insight to solve the problem that tumor heterogeneity is difficult to assess quantitatively. However, quantification of tumors by single-mode methods often has defects such as difficulty in features extraction and high computational complexity. The multimodal approach has shown effective application prospects in solving these problems. In this paper, we propose a feature fusion method based on positron emission tomography (PET) images and clinical information, which is used to obtain features for lung metastasis prediction of soft tissue sarcomas (STSs). Random forest method was adopted to select effective features by eliminating irrelevant or redundant features, and then they were used for the prediction of the lung metastasis combined with back propagation (BP) neural network. The results show that the prediction ability of the proposed model using fusion features is better than that of the model using an image or clinical feature alone. Furthermore, a good performance can be obtained using 3 standard uptake value (SUV) features of PET image and 7 clinical features, and its average accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity on all the sets can reach 92%, 91%, and 92%, respectively. Therefore, the fusing features have the potential to predict lung metastasis for STSs.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".