MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4380576500 · doi:10.1007/s11604-023-01458-3

Construction of prediction model for KRAS mutation status of colorectal cancer based on CT radiomics

2023· article· en· W4380576500 on OpenAlexaff
Yuntai Cao, Jing Zhang, Lele Huang, Zhiyong Zhao, Guojin Zhang, Jialiang Ren, Hailong Li, Hongqian Zhang, Bin Guo, Zhan Wang, Yue Xing, Junlin Zhou

Bibliographic record

VenueJapanese Journal of Radiology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging
Canadian institutionsArtificial Intelligence in Medicine (Canada)
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsKRASRadiomicsMedicineReceiver operating characteristicColorectal cancerStage (stratigraphy)Internal medicineOncologyArea under the curveRadiologyCancerBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: In this study, we used computed tomography (CT)-based radiomics signatures to predict the mutation status of KRAS in patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) and to identify the phase of radiomics signature with the most robust and high performance from triphasic enhanced CT. METHODS: This study involved 447 patients who underwent KRAS mutation testing and preoperative triphasic enhanced CT. They were categorized into training (n = 313) and validation cohorts (n = 134) in a 7:3 ratio. Radiomics features were extracted using triphasic enhanced CT imaging. The Boruta algorithm was used to retain the features closely associated with KRAS mutations. The Random Forest (RF) algorithm was used to develop radiomics, clinical, and combined clinical-radiomics models for KRAS mutations. The receiver operating characteristic curve, calibration curve, and decision curve were used to evaluate the predictive performance and clinical usefulness of each model. RESULTS: Age, CEA level, and clinical T stage were independent predictors of KRAS mutation status. After rigorous feature screening, four arterial phase (AP), three venous phase (VP), and seven delayed phase (DP) radiomics features were retained as the final signatures for predicting KRAS mutations. The DP models showed superior predictive performance compared to AP or VP models. The clinical-radiomics fusion model showed excellent performance, with an AUC, sensitivity, and specificity of 0.772, 0.792, and 0.646 in the training cohort, and 0.755, 0.724, and 0.684 in the validation cohort, respectively. The decision curve showed that the clinical-radiomics fusion model had more clinical practicality than the single clinical or radiomics model in predicting KRAS mutation status. CONCLUSION: The clinical-radiomics fusion model, which combines the clinical and DP radiomics model, has the best predictive performance for predicting the mutation status of KRAS in CRC, and the constructed model has been effectively verified by an internal validation cohort.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.296 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations15
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJapanese Journal of RadiologySame topicRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical ImagingFrench-language works237,207