Radiomics in surgical oncology: applications and challenges
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Surgery is a curative treatment option for many patients with malignant tumors. Increased attention has focused on the combination of surgery with chemotherapy, as multimodality treatment has been associated with promising results in certain cancer types. Despite these data, there remains clinical equipoise on optimal timing and patient selection for neoadjuvant or adjuvant strategies. Radiomics, an emerging field involving the extraction of advanced features from radiographic images, has the potential to revolutionize oncologic treatment and contribute to the advance of personalized therapy by helping predict tumor behavior and response to therapy. This review analyzes and summarizes studies that use radiomics with machine learning in patients who have received neoadjuvant and/or adjuvant chemotherapy to predict prognosis, recurrence, survival, and therapeutic response for various cancer types. While studies in both neoadjuvant and adjuvant settings demonstrate above average performance on ability to predict progression-free and overall survival, there remain many challenges and limitations to widespread implementation of this technology. The lack of standardization of common practices to analyze radiomics, limited data sharing, and absence of auto-segmentation have hindered the inclusion and rapid adoption of radiomics in prospective, clinical studies.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".