Comparison of robust to standardized CT radiomics models to predict overall survival for non‐small cell lung cancer patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Radiomics is a promising tool for the identification of new prognostic biomarkers. Radiomic features can be affected by different scanning protocols, often present in retrospective and prospective clinical data. We compared a computed tomography (CT) radiomics model based on a large but highly heterogeneous multicentric image dataset with robust feature pre-selection to a model based on a smaller but standardized image dataset without pre-selection. MATERIALS AND METHODS: = 1). Four robustness studies investigating inter-observer delineation variation, motion, convolution kernel, and contrast were conducted to identify robust features using an intraclass correlation coefficient threshold >0.9. Two 12-months overall survival (OS) logistic regression models were trained: (a) on the entire multicentric heterogeneous dataset but with robust feature pre-selection (MCR) and (b) on a smaller standardized subset using all features (STD). Both models were validated on the validation dataset acquired with similar reconstruction parameters as the STD dataset. The model performances were compared using the DeLong test. RESULTS: = 98). The convolution kernel had the strongest influence on the feature robustness (<20% stable features). The final models of MCR and STD consisted of one and two features respectively. Both features of the STD model were identified as non-robust. MCR did not show performance significantly different from STD on the validation cohort (AUC [95%CI] = 0.72 [0.48-0.95] and 0.79 [0.63-0.95], p = 0.59). CONCLUSION: Prognostic OS CT radiomics model for NSCLC based on a heterogeneous multicentric imaging dataset with robust feature pre-selection performed equally well as a model on a standardized dataset.
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 | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".