Radiomics-Based Machine Learning for Outcome Prediction in a Multicenter Phase II Study of Programmed Death-Ligand 1 Inhibition Immunotherapy for Glioblastoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Imaging assessment of an immunotherapy response in glioblastoma is challenging due to overlap in the appearance of treatment-related changes with tumor progression. Our purpose was to determine whether MR imaging radiomics-based machine learning can predict progression-free survival and overall survival in patients with glioblastoma on programmed death-ligand 1 inhibition immunotherapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Post hoc analysis was performed of a multicenter trial on the efficacy of durvalumab in glioblastoma (n = 113). Radiomics tumor features on pretreatment and first on-treatment time point MR imaging were extracted. The random survival forest algorithm was applied to clinical and radiomics features from pretreatment and first on-treatment MR imaging from a subset of trial sites (n = 60–74) to train a model to predict long overall survival and progression-free survival and was tested externally on data from the remaining sites (n = 29–43). Model performance was assessed using the concordance index and dynamic area under the curve from different time points. RESULTS: The mean age was 55.2 (SD, 11.5) years, and 69% of patients were male. Pretreatment MR imaging features had a poor predictive value for overall survival and progression-free survival (concordance index = 0.472–0.524). First on-treatment MR imaging features had high predictive value for overall survival (concordance index = 0.692–0.750) and progression-free survival (concordance index = 0.680–0.715). CONCLUSIONS: A radiomics-based machine learning model from first on-treatment MR imaging predicts survival in patients with glioblastoma on programmed death-ligand 1 inhibition immunotherapy.
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 | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".