Prognostic value of PET/CT and MR-based baseline radiomics among patients with non-metastatic nasopharyngeal carcinoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Radiomics is an emerging imaging assessment technique that has shown promise in predicting survival among nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) patients. Studies so far have focused on PET or MR-based radiomics independently. The aim of our study was to evaluate the prognostic value of clinical and radiomic parameters derived from both PET/CT and MR. Methods: Retrospective evaluation of 124 NPC patients with PET/CT and radiotherapy planning MR (RP-MR). Primary tumors were segmented using dedicated software (LIFEx version 6.1) from PET, CT, contrast-enhanced T1-weighted (T1-w), and T2-weighted (T2-w) MR sequences with 376 radiomic features extracted. Summary statistics describe patient, disease, and treatment characteristics. The Kaplan-Meier (KM) method estimates overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Clinical factors selected based on univariable analysis and the multivariable Cox model were subsequently constructed with radiomic features added. Results: 0.96 at 24 months for OS). Clinical + RP-MR features initially outperform clinical + PET/CT for both OS and PFS (<18 months), and later in the clinical course for PFS (>42 months). Conclusion: Our study demonstrated that PET/CT-based radiomic features may improve survival prognostication among NPC patients when combined with baseline clinical and MR-based radiomic features.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".