Lung Nodule Malignancy Prediction in Sequential CT Scans: Summary of ISBI 2018 Challenge
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lung cancer is by far the leading cause of cancer death in the US. Recent studies have demonstrated the effectiveness of screening using low dose CT (LDCT) in reducing lung cancer related mortality. While lung nodules are detected with a high rate of sensitivity, this exam has a low specificity rate and it is still difficult to separate benign and malignant lesions. The ISBI 2018 Lung Nodule Malignancy Prediction Challenge, developed by a team from the Quantitative Imaging Network of the National Cancer Institute, was focused on the prediction of lung nodule malignancy from two sequential LDCT screening exams using automated (non-manual) algorithms. We curated a cohort of 100 subjects who participated in the National Lung Screening Trial and had established pathological diagnoses. Data from 30 subjects were randomly selected for training and the remaining was used for testing. Participants were evaluated based on the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of nodule-wise malignancy scores generated by their algorithms on the test set. The challenge had 17 participants, with 11 teams submitting reports with method description, mandated by the challenge rules. Participants used quantitative methods, resulting in a reporting test AUC ranging from 0.698 to 0.913. The top five contestants used deep learning approaches, reporting an AUC between 0.87 - 0.91. The team's predictor did not achieve significant differences from each other nor from a volume change estimate (p =.05 with Bonferroni-Holm's correction).
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 | 0.021 | 0.051 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
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".