Pretreatment CT Texture Parameters as Predictive Biomarkers of Progression-Free Survival in Follicular Lymphoma Treated with Immunochemotherapy and Rituximab Maintenance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to determine whether texture analysis features present on pretreatment unenhanced computed tomography (CT) images, derived from 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission/computed tomography (18-FDG PET/CT), can predict progression-free survival (PFS), progression-free survival at 24 months (PFS 24), time to next treatment (TTNT), and overall survival in patients with high-tumor-burden follicular lymphoma treated with immunochemotherapy and rituximab maintenance. Seventy-two patients with follicular lymphoma were retrospectively included. Texture analysis was performed on unenhanced CT images extracted from 18-FDG PET/CT examinations that were obtained within one month before treatment. Skewness at a fine texture scale (SSF = 2) was an independent predictor of PFS (hazard ratio = 3.72 (95% CI: 1.15, 12.11), p = 0.028), PFS 24 (hazard ratio = 13.38; 95% CI: 1.29, 138.13; p = 0.029), and TTNT (hazard ratio = 5.11; 95% CI: 1.18, 22.13; p = 0.029). Skewness values above −0.015 at SSF = 2 were significantly associated with lower PFS, PFS 24, and TTNT. Kurtosis without filtration was an independent predictor of PFS (SSF = 0; HR = 1.22 (95% CI: 1.04, 1.44), p = 0.013), and TTNT (SSF = 0; hazard ratio = 1.23; 95% CI: 1.04, 1.46; p = 0.013). This study shows that pretreatment unenhanced CT texture analysis-derived tumor skewness and kurtosis may be used as predictive biomarkers of PFS and TTNT in patients with high-tumor-burden follicular lymphoma treated with immunochemotherapy and rituximab maintenance.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".