Radiomics-based machine learning models to distinguish between metastatic and healthy bone using lesion-center-based geometric regions of interest
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Radiomics-based machine learning classifiers have shown potential for detecting bone metastases (BM) and for evaluating BM response to radiotherapy (RT). However, current radiomics models require large datasets of images with expert-segmented 3D regions of interest (ROIs). Full ROI segmentation is time consuming and oncologists often outline just RT treatment fields in clinical practice. This presents a challenge for real-world radiomics research. As such, a method that simplifies BM identification but does not compromise the power of radiomics is needed. The objective of this study was to investigate the feasibility of radiomics models for BM detection using lesion-center-based geometric ROIs. The planning-CT images of 170 patients with non-metastatic lung cancer and 189 patients with spinal BM were used. The point locations of 631 BM and 674 healthy bone (HB) regions were identified by experts. ROIs with various geometric shapes were centered and automatically delineated on the identified locations, and 107 radiomics features were extracted. Various feature selection methods and machine learning classifiers were evaluated. Our point-based radiomics pipeline was successful in differentiating BM from HB. Lesion-center-based segmentation approach greatly simplifies the process of preparing images for use in radiomics studies and avoids the bottleneck of full ROI segmentation.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".