Cleaning radiotherapy contours for radiomics studies, is it worth it? A head and neck cancer study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A vast majority of studies in the radiomics field are based on contours originating from radiotherapy planning. This kind of delineation ( e.g. Gross Tumor Volume, GTV) is often larger than the true tumoral volume, sometimes including parts of other organs ( e.g. trachea in Head and Neck, H&N studies) and the impact of such over-segmentation was little investigated so far. In this paper, we propose to evaluate and compare the performance between models using two contour types: those from radiotherapy planning, and those specifically delineated for radiomics studies. For the latter, we modified the radiotherapy contours to fit the true tumoral volume. The two contour types were compared when predicting Progression-Free Survival (PFS) using Cox models based on radiomics features extracted from FluoroDeoxyGlucose-Positron Emission Tomography (FDG-PET) and CT images of 239 patients with oropharyngeal H&N cancer collected from five centers, the data from the 2020 HECKTOR challenge. Using Dedicated contours demonstrated better performance for predicting PFS, where Harell's concordance indices of 0 . 61 and 0 . 69 were achieved for Radiotherapy and Dedicated contours, respectively. Using automatically Resegmented contours based on a fixed intensity range was associated with a C-index of 0.63. These results illustrate the importance of using clean dedicated contours that are close to the true tumoral volume in radiomics studies, even when tumor contours are already available from radiotherapy treatment planning
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 | 0.029 | 0.073 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".