Machine learning for contour classification in TG‐263 noncompliant databases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A large volume of medical data are labeled using nonstandardized nomenclature. Although efforts have been made by the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) to standardize nomenclature through Task Group 263 (TG-263), there remain noncompliant databases. This work aims to create an algorithm that can analyze anatomical contours in patients with head and neck cancer and classify them into TG-263 compliant nomenclature. To create an accurate algorithm capable of such classification, a combined approaching using both binary images of individual slices of anatomical contours themselves, as well as center of mass coordinates of the structures are input into a neural network. The center of mass coordinates were scaled using two normalization schemes, a simple linear normalization scheme agnostic of the patient anatomy, and an anatomical normalization scheme dependent on patient anatomy. The results of all of the individual slice classifications are then aggregated into a single classification by means of a voting algorithm. The total classification accuracy of the final algorithms was 97.6% mean accuracy per class for nonanatomically normalization scheme, and 97.9% mean accuracy per class for anatomically normalization scheme. The total accuracy was 99.0% (13 errors in 1302 structures) for the nonanatomically normalization scheme, and 98.3% (22 errors in 1302 structures) for the anatomically normalization scheme.
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 | 0.002 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 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".