Prediction of Human Papillomavirus (HPV) Association of Oropharyngeal Cancer (OPC) Using Radiomics: The Impact of the Variation of CT Scanner
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Studies have shown that radiomic features are sensitive to the variability of imaging parameters (e.g., scanner models), and one of the major challenges in these studies lies in improving the robustness of quantitative features against the variations in imaging datasets from multi-center studies. Here, we assess the impact of scanner choice on computed tomography (CT)-derived radiomic features to predict the association of oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma with human papillomavirus (HPV). This experiment was performed on CT image datasets acquired from two different scanner manufacturers. We demonstrate strong scanner dependency by developing a machine learning model to classify HPV status from radiological images. These experiments reveal the effect of scanner manufacturer on the robustness of radiomic features, and the extent of this dependency is reflected in the performance of HPV prediction models. The results of this study highlight the importance of implementing an appropriate approach to reducing the impact of imaging parameters on radiomic features and consequently on the machine learning models, without removing features which are deemed non-robust but may contain learning information.
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 | 0.005 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".