CT-based radiomics model with machine learning for predicting primary treatment failure in diffuse large B-cell Lymphoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Biomarkers which can identify Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma (DLBCL) likely to be refractory to first-line therapy are essential for selecting this population prior to therapy initiation to offer alternate therapeutic options that can improve prognosis. We tested the ability of a CT-based radiomics approach with machine learning to predict Primary Treatment Failure (PTF)-DLBCL from initial imaging evaluation. Twenty-six refractory patients were matched to 26 non-refractory patients, yielding 180 lymph nodes for analysis. Manual 3D delineation of the total node volume was performed by two independent readers to test the reproducibility. Then, 1218 hand-crafted radiomic features were extracted. The Random Forests machine learning approach was used as a classifier for constructing the prediction models. Seventy percent of the nodes were randomly assigned to a training set and the remaining 30% were assigned to an independent test set. The final model was tested on the dataset from the 2 readers, showing a mean accuracy, sensitivity and specificity of 73%, 62% and 82%, respectively, for distinguishing between refractory and non-refractory patients. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was 0.83 and 0.79 for the two readers. We conclude that machine learning CT-based radiomics analysis is able to identify a priori PTF-DLBCL with a good accuracy.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".