A deep-learning radiomics-based lymph node metastasis predictive model for pancreatic cancer: a diagnostic study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Preoperative lymph node (LN) status is essential in formulating the treatment strategy among pancreatic cancer patients. However, it is still challenging to evaluate the preoperative LN status precisely now. METHODS: A multivariate model was established based on the multiview-guided two-stream convolution network (MTCN) radiomics algorithms, which focused on primary tumor and peri-tumor features. Regarding discriminative ability, survival fitting, and model accuracy, different models were compared. RESULTS: Three hundred and sixty-three pancreatic cancer patients were divided in to train and test cohorts by 7:3. The modified MTCN (MTCN+) model was established based on age, CA125, MTCN scores, and radiologist judgement. The MTCN+ model outperformed the MTCN model and the artificial model in discriminative ability and model accuracy. [Train cohort area under curve (AUC): 0.823 vs. 0.793 vs. 0.592; train cohort accuracy (ACC): 76.1 vs. 74.4 vs. 56.7%; test cohort AUC: 0.815 vs. 0.749 vs. 0.640; test cohort ACC: 76.1 vs. 70.6 vs. 63.3%; external validation AUC: 0.854 vs. 0.792 vs. 0.542; external validation ACC: 71.4 vs. 67.9 vs. 53.5%]. The survivorship curves fitted well between actual LN status and predicted LN status regarding disease free survival and overall survival. Nevertheless, the MTCN+ model performed poorly in assessing the LN metastatic burden among the LN positive population. Notably, among the patients with small primary tumors, the MTCN+ model performed steadily as well (AUC: 0.823, ACC: 79.5%). CONCLUSIONS: A novel MTCN+ preoperative LN status predictive model was established and outperformed the artificial judgement and deep-learning radiomics judgement. Around 40% misdiagnosed patients judged by radiologists could be corrected. And the model could help precisely predict the survival prognosis.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".