MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Applying radiomics to predict pathology of post chemotherapy retroperitoneal nodal masses in germ cell tumors (GCT).

2017· article· en· W3175822154 on OpenAlexaff
Jeremy Lewin, Paul Dufort, Jaydeep Halankar, Martin O’Malley, Michael A.S. Jewett, Robert J. Hamilton, Abha A. Gupta, Armando J. Lorenzo, Jeffrey Traubici, Madhur Nayan, Ricardo Leão, Padraig Warde, Peter Chung, Lynn Anson‐Cartwright, Joan Sweet, Aaron R. Hansen, Ur Metser, Philippe L. Bédard

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSarcoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health NetworkHospital for Sick ChildrenPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRadiomicsGerm cell tumorsLymph nodeRadiologyPathologicalRetroperitoneal lymph node dissectionChemotherapyInternal medicineTesticular cancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

4559 Background: After chemotherapy, > 50% of patients (pts) with metastatic testicular GCT who undergo retroperitoneal lymph node dissection (RPNLD) for residual masses are found to have fibrosis (F) alone on pathological examination. To minimize overtreatment, better prediction algorithms are needed to identify pts with F who can avoid RPLND. Radiomics uses image processing techniques to extract quantitative textures/features from tumor regions of interest (ROI) to train a classifier that predicts pathological findings. We hypothesized that radiomics may identify pts with a high predicted likelihood of F who may avoid RPLND. Methods: Pts with GCT who had an RPLND for nodal masses > 1cm after first line platinum chemotherapy were included. Preoperative contrast enhanced axial CT images of retroperitoneal ROI were manually contoured. 153 radiomics features trained a radial basis function support vector machine classifier to discriminate between viable GCT /Mature Teratoma (T) vs F. Nested ten-fold cross-validation protocol was employed to determine classifier accuracy. Clinical variables and restricted size criteria were used to optimize the classifier. Results: A total of 82 pts with 102 ROI were analyzed (GCT: 21; T: 41; F: 40). The discriminative accuracy of radiomics to identify GCT/T vs F was 72%(±2.2)(AUC: 0.74 (±0.028); positive predictive value: 67% (48-92%); negative predictive value: 74% (62-84%)(p = 0.001)). No major predictive differences were identified when data was restricted by varying maximal axial diameters (AUC range: 0.58(±0.05) - 0.74(±0.03)). Prediction algorithm using clinical variables alone identified an AUC of 0.71 (±0.15). When these variables were added to the radiomic signature, the best performing classifier was identified when axial tumors were limited to diameter < 2cm (accuracy: 88.2 (±4.4); AUC: 0.80 (±0.05)(p = 0.02)). Conclusions: A predictive radiomics algorithm had an overall discriminative accuracy of 72% that improved to 88% when combined with clinical details. Further independent validation is required to assess whether radiomics, in conjunction with standard clinical predictors, may allow pts with a high predicted likelihood of F to avoid RPLND.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.082
GPT teacher head0.439
Teacher spread0.356 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicSarcoma Diagnosis and Treatment→French-language works237,207→