Tumor Microenvironment, Radiology, and Artificial Intelligence: Should We Consider Tumor Periphery?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The tumor microenvironment (TME) consists of cellular and noncellular components which enable the tumor to interact with its surroundings and plays an important role in the tumor progression and how the immune system reacts to the malignancy. In the present study, we investigate the diagnostic potential of the TME in differentiating benign and malignant lesions using image quantification and machine learning. METHODS: A total of 229 breast lesions and 220 cervical lymph nodes were included in the study. A group of expert radiologists first performed medical imaging and segmented the lesions, after which a rectangular mask was drawn, encompassing all of the contouring. The mask was extended in each axis up to 50%, and 29 radiomics features were extracted from each mask. Radiomics features that showed a significant difference in each contour were used to develop a support vector machine (SVM) classifier for benign and malignant lesions in breast and lymph node images separately. RESULTS: Single radiomics features extracted from extended contours outperformed radiologists' contours in both breast and lymph node lesions. Furthermore, when fed into the SVM model, the extended models also outperformed the radiologist's contour, achieving an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.887 and 0.970 in differentiating breast and lymph node lesions, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Our results provide convincing evidence regarding the importance of the tumor periphery and TME in medical imaging diagnosis. We propose that the immediate tumor periphery should be considered for differentiating benign and malignant lesions in image quantification studies.
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 | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".