Radiomics modelling in rectal cancer to predict disease-free survival: evaluation of different approaches
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Radiomics may be useful in rectal cancer management. The aim of this study was to assess and compare different radiomics approaches over qualitative evaluation to predict disease-free survival (DFS) in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer treated with neoadjuvant therapy. METHODS: Patients from a phase II, multicentre, randomized study (GRECCAR4; NCT01333709) were included retrospectively as a training set. An independent cohort of patients comprised the independent test set. For both time points and both sets, radiomic features were extracted from two-dimensional manual segmentation (MS), three-dimensional (3D) MS, and from bounding boxes. Radiomics predictive models of DFS were built using a hyperparameters-tuned random forests classifier. Additionally, radiomics models were compared with qualitative parameters, including sphincter invasion, extramural vascular invasion as determined by MRI (mrEMVI) at baseline, and tumour regression grade evaluated by MRI (mrTRG) after chemoradiotherapy (CRT). RESULTS: In the training cohort of 98 patients, all three models showed good performance with mean(s.d.) area under the curve (AUC) values ranging from 0.77(0.09) to 0.89(0.09) for prediction of DFS. The 3D radiomics model outperformed qualitative analysis based on mrEMVI and sphincter invasion at baseline (P = 0.038 and P = 0.027 respectively), and mrTRG after CRT (P = 0.017). In the independent test cohort of 48 patients, at baseline and after CRT the AUC ranged from 0.67(0.09) to 0.76(0.06). All three models showed no difference compared with qualitative analysis in the independent set. CONCLUSION: Radiomics models can predict DFS in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".