Chronic lung allograft dysfunction phenotype and prognosis by machine learning CT analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Chronic lung allograft dysfunction (CLAD) is the principal cause of graft failure in lung transplant recipients and prognosis depends on CLAD phenotype. We used a machine learning computed tomography (CT) lung texture analysis tool at CLAD diagnosis for phenotyping and prognostication compared with radiologist scoring. METHODS: This retrospective study included all adult first double lung transplant patients (January 2010-December 2015) with CLAD (censored December 2019) and inspiratory CT near CLAD diagnosis. The machine learning tool quantified ground-glass opacity, reticulation, hyperlucent lung and pulmonary vessel volume (PVV). Two radiologists scored for ground-glass opacity, reticulation, consolidation, pleural effusion, air trapping and bronchiectasis. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis was used to evaluate the diagnostic performance of machine learning and radiologist for CLAD phenotype. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression analysis for allograft survival controlled for age, sex, native lung disease, cytomegalovirus serostatus and CLAD phenotype. RESULTS: 88 patients were included (57 bronchiolitis obliterans syndrome (BOS), 20 restrictive allograft syndrome (RAS)/mixed and 11 unclassified/undefined) with CT a median 9.5 days from CLAD onset. Radiologist and machine learning parameters phenotyped RAS/mixed with PVV as the strongest indicator (area under the curve (AUC) 0.85). Machine learning hyperlucent lung phenotyped BOS using only inspiratory CT (AUC 0.76). Radiologist and machine learning parameters predicted graft failure in the multivariable analysis, best with PVV (hazard ratio 1.23, 95% CI 1.05-1.44; p=0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Machine learning discriminated between CLAD phenotypes on CT. Both radiologist and machine learning scoring were associated with graft failure, independent of CLAD phenotype. PVV, unique to machine learning, was the strongest in phenotyping and prognostication.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".