Artificial Intelligence in Lung Cancer: Bridging the Gap Between Computational Power and Clinical Decision-Making
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
Lung cancer remains the most common cause of cancer death worldwide. Recent advances in lung cancer screening, radiotherapy, surgical techniques, and systemic therapy have led to increasing complexity in diagnosis, treatment decision-making, and assessment of recurrence. Artificial intelligence (AI)-based prediction models are being developed to address these issues and may have a future role in screening, diagnosis, treatment selection, and decision-making around salvage therapy. Imaging plays an essential role in all components of lung cancer management and has the potential to play a key role in AI applications. Artificial intelligence has demonstrated value in prognostic biomarker discovery in lung cancer diagnosis, treatment, and response assessment, putting it at the forefront of the next phase of personalized medicine. However, although exploratory studies demonstrate potential utility, there is a need for rigorous validation and standardization before AI can be utilized in clinical decision-making. In this review, we will provide a summary of the current literature implementing AI for outcome prediction in lung cancer. We will describe the anticipated impact of AI on the management of patients with lung cancer and discuss the challenges of clinical implementation of these techniques.
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 | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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