<scp>CT</scp> radiomics identifying non‐responders to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy among patients with locally advanced rectal cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Early detection of non-response to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) for locally advanced colorectal cancer (LARC) remains challenging. We aimed to assess whether pretreatment radiotherapy planning computed tomography (CT) radiomics could distinguish the patients with no response or no downstaging after nCRT from those with response and downstaging after nCRT. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with LARC who were treated with nCRT were retrospectively enrolled between March 2009 and March 2019. Traditional radiological characteristics were analyzed by visual inspection and radiomic features were analyzed through computational methods from the pretreatment radiotherapy planning CT images. Differentiation models were constructed using radiomic methods and clinicopathological characteristics for predicting non-response to nCRT. Model performance was assessed for classification efficiency, calibration, discrimination, and clinical application. RESULTS: This study enrolled a total of 215 patients, including 151 patients in the training cohort (50 non-responders and 101 responders) and 64 patients in the validation cohort (21 non-responders and 43 responders). For predicting non-response, the model constructed with an ensemble machine learning method had higher performance with area under the curve (AUC) values of 0.92 and 0.89 as compared to the model constructed with the logistic regression method (AUC: 0.72 and 0.71 for the training and validation cohorts, respectively). Both decision curve and calibration curve analyses confirmed that the ensemble machine learning model had higher prediction performance. CONCLUSION: Pretreatment CT radiomics achieved satisfying performance in predicting non-response to nCRT and could be helpful to assist in treatment planning for patients with LARC.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".