Radiomics and dosiomics-based prediction of radiotherapy-induced xerostomia in head and neck cancer patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and aim Dose-response modeling for radiotherapy-induced xerostomia in head and neck cancer (HN) patients is a promising frontier for personalized therapy. Feature extraction from diagnostic and therapeutic images (radiomics and dosiomics features) can be used for data-driven response modeling. The aim of this study is to develop xerostomia predictive models based on radiomics-dosiomics features.Methods Data from the cancer imaging archive (TCIA) for 31 HN cancer patients were employed. For all patients, parotid CT radiomics features were extracted, utilizing Lasso regression for feature selection and multivariate modeling. The models were developed by selected features from pretreatment (CT1), mid-treatment (CT2), post-treatment (CT3), and delta features (ΔCT2-1, ΔCT3-1, ΔCT3-2). We also considered dosiomics features extracted from the parotid dose distribution images (Dose model). Thus, combination models of radio-dosiomics (CT + dose & ΔCT + dose) were developed. Moreover, clinical, and dose-volume histogram (DVH) models were built. Nested 10-fold cross-validation was used to assess the predictive classification of patients into those with and without xerostomia, and the area under the receiver operative characteristic curve (AUC) was used to compare the predictive power of the models. The sensitivity and accuracy of models also were obtained.Results In total, 59 parotids were assessed, and 13 models were developed. Our results showed three models with AUC of 0.89 as most predictive, namely ΔCT2-1 + Dose (Sensitivity 0.99, Accuracy 0.94 & Specificity 0.86), CT3 model (Sensitivity 0.96, Accuracy 0.94 & Specificity 0.86) and DVH (Sensitivity 0.93, Accuracy 0.89 & Specificity 0.84). These models were followed by Clinical (AUC 0.89, Sensitivity 0.81, Accuracy 0.97 & Specificity 0.89) and CT2 & Dose (AUC 0.86, Sensitivity 0.97, Accuracy 0.87 & Specificity 0.82). The Dose model (developed by dosiomics features only) had AUC, Sensitivity, Specificity, and Accuracy of 0.72, 0.98, 0.33, and 0.79 respectively.Conclusion Quantitative features extracted from diagnostic imaging during and after radiotherapy alone or in combination with dosiomics markers obtained from dose distribution images can be used for radiotherapy response modeling, opening up prospects for personalization of therapies toward improved therapeutic outcomes.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".