Radiomic Machine-Learning Analysis of Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging in the Diagnosis of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer: New Combination of Textural and Clinical Features
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The aim of our study was to develop a radiomic tool for the prediction of clinically significant prostate cancer. METHODS: From September 2020 to December 2021, 91 patients who underwent magnetic resonance imaging prostate fusion biopsy at our institution were selected. Prostate cancer aggressiveness was assessed by combining the three orthogonal planes-Llocal binary pattern the 3Dgray level co-occurrence matrix, and other first order statistical features with clinical (semantic) features. The 487 features were used to predict whether the Gleason score was clinically significant (≥7) in the final pathology. A feature selection algorithm was used to determine the most predictive features, and at the end of the process, nine features were chosen through a 10-fold cross validation. RESULTS: The feature analysis revealed a detection accuracy of 83.5%, with a clinically significant precision of 84.4% and a clinically significant sensitivity of 91.5%. The resulting area under the curve was 80.4%. CONCLUSIONS: Radiomic analysis allowed us to develop a tool that was able to predict a Gleason score of ≥7. This new tool may improve the detection rate of clinically significant prostate cancer and overcome the limitations of the subjective interpretation of magnetic resonance imaging, reducing the number of useless biopsies.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".