Clinician-interactive AI for RECIST measurements in CT imaging
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The RECIST criteria are used in computed tomography (CT) imaging to assess changes in tumour burden induced by cancer therapeutics throughout treatment. One of its requirements is frequent measurement of lesion diameters , which is often time consuming for clinicians. We aimed to study clinician-interactive AI, defined as deep learning models that use image annotations as input to assist in radiological measurements. Two annotation types are compared in their enhancement of predictive capabilities: mouse clicks in the tumour region, and bounding boxes surrounding lesions. The model architectures compared in this study are the U-Net, V-Net, AH-Net, and SegRes-Net. Models were trained and tested using a non-small cell lung cancer dataset from the cancer imaging archive (TCIA) consisting of CT scans and corresponding gold-standard lesion segmentations inferred from PET/CT scans. Mouse clicks and bounding boxes, representing clinician input, were artificially generated. The absolute percent error between predicted and ground truth diameters was computed for each model architecture. Bounding box annotations yielded mean absolute percent errors of 4.9 ± 2.1 %, 7.8 ± 3.4 %, 5.6 ± 2.4 % and 5.6 ± 2.3 %, respectively, whereas models using clicks annotations yielded 17.0 ± 7.9 %, 19.8 ± 9.3 %, 21.4 ± 10.9 % and 18.1 ± 7.9%. The corresponding mean dice scores across all model architectures were 0.883 ± 0.004 and 0.760 ± 0.012 for bounding box and click annotations respectively. Models were then implemented in an AI pipeline for clinical use at the BC cancer agency using the Ascinta software package; click annotations yielded qualitatively better results than bounding box annotations.
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 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".