Machine-Learning Approach to Differentiation of Benign and Malignant Peripheral Nerve Sheath Tumors: A Multicenter Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Clinicoradiologic differentiation between benign and malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumors (PNSTs) has important management implications. OBJECTIVE: To develop and evaluate machine-learning approaches to differentiate benign from malignant PNSTs. METHODS: We identified PNSTs treated at 3 institutions and extracted high-dimensional radiomics features from gadolinium-enhanced, T1-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) sequences. Training and test sets were selected randomly in a 70:30 ratio. A total of 900 image features were automatically extracted using the PyRadiomics package from Quantitative Imaging Feature Pipeline. Clinical data including age, sex, neurogenetic syndrome presence, spontaneous pain, and motor deficit were also incorporated. Features were selected using sparse regression analysis and retained features were further refined by gradient boost modeling to optimize the area under the curve (AUC) for diagnosis. We evaluated the performance of radiomics-based classifiers with and without clinical features and compared performance against human readers. RESULTS: A total of 95 malignant and 171 benign PNSTs were included. The final classifier model included 21 imaging and clinical features. Sensitivity, specificity, and AUC of 0.676, 0.882, and 0.845, respectively, were achieved on the test set. Using imaging and clinical features, human experts collectively achieved sensitivity, specificity, and AUC of 0.786, 0.431, and 0.624, respectively. The AUC of the classifier was statistically better than expert humans (P = .002). Expert humans were not statistically better than the no-information rate, whereas the classifier was (P = .001). CONCLUSION: Radiomics-based machine learning using routine MRI sequences and clinical features can aid in evaluation of PNSTs. Further improvement may be achieved by incorporating additional imaging sequences and clinical variables into future models.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".