Machine Learning of Multi-Modal Tumor Imaging Reveals Trajectories of Response to Precision Treatment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The standard assessment of response to cancer treatments is based on gross tumor characteristics, such as tumor size or glycolysis, which provide very indirect information about the effect of precision treatments on the pharmacological targets of tumors. Several advanced imaging modalities allow for the visualization of targeted tumor hallmarks. Descriptors extracted from these images can help establishing new classifications of precision treatment response. We propose a machine learning (ML) framework to analyze metabolic–anatomical–vascular imaging features from positron emission tomography, ultrafast Doppler, and computed tomography in a mouse model of paraganglioma undergoing anti-angiogenic treatment with sunitinib. Imaging features from the follow-up of sunitinib-treated (n = 8, imaged once-per-week/6-weeks) and sham-treated (n = 8, imaged once-per-week/3-weeks) mice groups were dimensionally reduced and analyzed with hierarchical clustering Analysis (HCA). The classes extracted from HCA were used with 10 ML classifiers to find a generalized tumor stage prediction model, which was validated with an independent dataset of sunitinib-treated mice. HCA provided three stages of treatment response that were validated using the best-performing ML classifier. The Gaussian naive Bayes classifier showed the best performance, with a training accuracy of 98.7 and an average area under curve of 100. Our results show that metabolic–anatomical–vascular markers allow defining treatment response trajectories that reflect the efficacy of an anti-angiogenic drug on the tumor target hallmark.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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 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".