End-to-End Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer Prognostication Using Deep Learning Applied to Pretreatment Computed Tomography
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Clinical TNM staging is a key prognostic factor for patients with lung cancer and is used to inform treatment and monitoring. Computed tomography (CT) plays a central role in defining the stage of disease. Deep learning applied to pretreatment CTs may offer additional, individualized prognostic information to facilitate more precise mortality risk prediction and stratification. METHODS: We developed a fully automated imaging-based prognostication technique (IPRO) using deep learning to predict 1-year, 2-year, and 5-year mortality from pretreatment CTs of patients with stage I-IV lung cancer. Using six publicly available data sets from The Cancer Imaging Archive, we performed a retrospective five-fold cross-validation using pretreatment CTs of 1,689 patients, of whom 1,110 were diagnosed with non-small-cell lung cancer and had available TNM staging information. We compared the association of IPRO and TNM staging with patients' survival status and assessed an Ensemble risk score that combines IPRO and TNM staging. Finally, we evaluated IPRO's ability to stratify patients within TNM stages using hazard ratios (HRs) and Kaplan-Meier curves. RESULTS: IPRO showed similar prognostic power (concordance index [C-index] 1-year: 0.72, 2-year: 0.70, 5-year: 0.68) compared with that of TNM staging (C-index 1-year: 0.71, 2-year: 0.71, 5-year: 0.70) in predicting 1-year, 2-year, and 5-year mortality. The Ensemble risk score yielded superior performance across all time points (C-index 1-year: 0.77, 2-year: 0.77, 5-year: 0.76). IPRO stratified patients within TNM stages, discriminating between highest- and lowest-risk quintiles in stages I (HR: 8.60), II (HR: 5.03), III (HR: 3.18), and IV (HR: 1.91). CONCLUSION: Deep learning applied to pretreatment CT combined with TNM staging enhances prognostication and risk stratification in patients with lung 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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".