Assessing robustness of carotid artery CT angiography radiomics in the identification of culprit lesions in cerebrovascular events
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Radiomics, quantitative feature extraction from radiological images, can improve disease diagnosis and prognostication. However, radiomic features are susceptible to image acquisition and segmentation variability. Ideally, only features robust to these variations would be incorporated into predictive models, for good generalisability. We extracted 93 radiomic features from carotid artery computed tomography angiograms of 41 patients with cerebrovascular events. We tested feature robustness to region-of-interest perturbations, image pre-processing settings and quantisation methods using both single- and multi-slice approaches. We assessed the ability of the most robust features to identify culprit and non-culprit arteries using several machine learning algorithms and report the average area under the curve (AUC) from five-fold cross validation. Multi-slice features were superior to single for producing robust radiomic features (67 vs. 61). The optimal image quantisation method used bin widths of 25 or 30. Incorporating our top 10 non-redundant robust radiomics features into ElasticNet achieved an AUC of 0.73 and accuracy of 69% (compared to carotid calcification alone [AUC: 0.44, accuracy: 46%]). Our results provide key information for introducing carotid CT radiomics into clinical practice. If validated prospectively, our robust carotid radiomic set could improve stroke prediction and target therapies to those at highest risk.
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 | 0.010 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".