Validation of Convolutional Neural Networks for Fast Determination of Whole-Body Metabolic Tumor Burden in Pediatric Lymphoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
18F-FDG PET/CT quantification of whole-body tumor burden in lymphoma is not routinely performed because of the lack of fast methods. Although the semiautomatic method is fast, it is not fast enough to quantify tumor burden in daily clinical practice. Our purpose was to evaluate the performance of convolutional neural network (CNN) software in localizing neoplastic lesions in whole-body 18F-FDG PET/CT images of pediatric lymphoma patients. Methods: The retrospective image dataset, derived from the data pool of the International Atomic Energy Agency (coordinated research project E12017), included 102 baseline staging 18F-FDG PET/CT studies of pediatric lymphoma patients (mean age, 11 y). The images were quantified to determine the whole-body tumor burden (whole-body metabolic tumor volume [wbMTV] and whole-body total lesion glycolysis [wbTLG]) using semiautomatic software and CNN-based software. Both were displayed as semiautomatic wbMTV and wbTLG and as CNN wbMTV and wbTLG. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was applied to evaluate concordance between the CNN-based software and the semiautomatic software. Results: Twenty-six patients were excluded from the analysis because the software was unable to perform calculations for them. In the remaining 76 patients, CNN and semiautomatic wbMTV tumor burden metrics correlated strongly (ICC, 0.993; 95% CI, 0.989 − 0.996; P < 0.0001), as did CNN and semiautomatic wbTLG (ICC, 0.999; 95% CI, 0.998–0.999; P < 0.0001). However, the time spent calculating these metrics was significantly (<0.0001) less by CNN (mean, 19 s; range, 11–50 s) than by the semiautomatic method (mean, 21.6 min; range, 3.2–62.1 min), especially in patients with advanced disease. Conclusion: Determining whole-body tumor burden in pediatric lymphoma patients using CNN is fast and feasible in clinical practice.
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 | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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".