Do Dosiomic Features Extracted From Planned 3-Dimensional Dose Distribution Improve Biochemical Failure-Free Survival Prediction: an Analysis Based on a Large Multi-Institutional Data Set
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: The objective of this work was to investigate whether including additional dosiomic features can improve biochemical failure-free survival prediction compared with models with clinical features only or with clinical features as well as equivalent uniform dose and tumor control probability. Methods and Materials: test. Results: Model C selected 6 dosiomic features and 4 clinical features to be prognostic. There were statistically significant differences between the 4 risk groups for both training and validation data sets. The C-index for the out-of-bag samples of the training data set was 0.650, 0.648, and 0.669 for models A, B, and C, respectively. The C-index for the validation data set for models A, B, and C was 0.653, 0.648, and 0.662, respectively. Although gains were modest, Model C was statistically significantly better than models A and B. Conclusions: Dosiomics contain information beyond common dose-volume histogram metrics from planned dose distributions. Incorporation of prognostic dosiomic features in biochemical failure-free survival outcome models can lead to statistically significant although modest improvement in performance.
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 | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 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".