Investigating the impact of the CT Hounsfield unit range on radiomic feature stability using dual energy CT data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Radiomic texture calculation requires discretizing image intensities within the region-of-interest. FBN (fixed-bin-number), FBS (fixed-bin-size) and FBN and FBS with intensity equalization (FBNequal, FBSequal) are four discretization approaches. A crucial choice is the voxel intensity (Hounsfield units, or HU) binning range. We assessed the effect of this choice on radiomic features. METHODS: The dataset comprised 95 patients with head-and-neck squamous-cell-carcinoma. Dual energy CT data was reconstructed at 21 electron energies (40, 45,… 140 keV). Each of 94 texture features were calculated with 64 extraction parameters. All features were calculated five times: original choice, left shift (-10/-20 HU), right shift (+10/+20 HU). For each feature, Spearman correlation between nominal and four variants were calculated to determine feature stability. This was done for six texture feature types (GLCM, GLRLM, GLSZM, GLDZM, NGTDM, and NGLDM) separately. This analysis was repeated for the four binning algorithms. Effect of feature instability on predictive ability was studied for lymphadenopathy as endpoint. RESULTS: FBN and FBNequal algorithms showed good stability (correlation values consistently >0.9). For FBS and FBSequal algorithms, while median values exceeded 0.9, the 95% lower bound decreased as a function of energy, with poor performance over the entire spectrum. FBNequal was the most stable algorithm, and FBS the least. CONCLUSIONS: We believe this is the first multi-energy systematic study of the impact of CT HU range used during intensity discretization for radiomic feature extraction. Future analyses should account for this source of uncertainty when evaluating the robustness of their radiomic signature.
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".