Multimodality Imaging and Artificial Intelligence for Tumor Characterization: Current Status and Future Perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research in medical imaging has yet to do to achieve precision oncology. Over the past 30 years, only the simplest imaging biomarkers (RECIST, SUV,…) have become widespread clinical tools. This may be due to our inability to accurately characterize tumors and monitor intratumoral changes in imaging. Artificial intelligence, through machine learning and deep learning, opens a new path in medical research because it can bring together a large amount of heterogeneous data into the same analysis to reach a single outcome. Supervised or unsupervised learning may lead to new paradigms by identifying unrevealed structural patterns across data. Deep learning will provide human-free, undefined upstream, reproducible, and automated quantitative imaging biomarkers. Since tumor phenotype is driven by its genotype and thus indirectly defines tumoral progression, tumor characterization using machine learning and deep learning algorithms will allow us to monitor molecular expression noninvasively, anticipate therapeutic failure, and lead therapeutic management. To follow this path, quality standards have to be set: standardization of imaging acquisition as it has been done in the field of biology, transparency of the model development as it should be reproducible by different institutions, validation, and testing through a high-quality process using large and complex open databases and better interpretability of these algorithms.
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 | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".