Machine Learning Integrating 99mTc Sestamibi SPECT/CT and Radiomics Data Achieves Optimal Characterization of Renal Oncocytic Tumors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The increasing evidence of oncocytic renal tumors positive in 99mTc Sestamibi Single Photon Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography (SPECT/CT) examination calls for the development of diagnostic tools to differentiate these tumors from more aggressive forms. This study combined radiomics analysis with the uptake of 99mTc Sestamibi on SPECT/CT to differentiate benign renal oncocytic neoplasms from renal cell carcinoma. A total of 57 renal tumors were prospectively collected. Histopathological analysis and radiomics data extraction were performed. XGBoost classifiers were trained using the radiomics features alone and combined with the results from the visual evaluation of 99mTc Sestamibi SPECT/CT examination. The combined SPECT/radiomics model achieved higher accuracy (95%) with an area under the curve (AUC) of 98.3% (95% CI 93.7–100%) than the radiomics-only model (71.67%) with an AUC of 75% (95% CI 49.7–100%) and visual evaluation of 99mTc Sestamibi SPECT/CT alone (90.8%) with an AUC of 90.8% (95%CI 82.5–99.1%). The positive predictive values of SPECT/radiomics, radiomics-only, and 99mTc Sestamibi SPECT/CT-only models were 100%, 85.71%, and 85%, respectively, whereas the negative predictive values were 85.71%, 55.56%, and 94.6%, respectively. Feature importance analysis revealed that 99mTc Sestamibi uptake was the most influential attribute in the combined model. This study highlights the potential of combining radiomics analysis with 99mTc Sestamibi SPECT/CT to improve the preoperative characterization of benign renal oncocytic neoplasms. The proposed SPECT/radiomics classifier outperformed the visual evaluation of 99mTc Sestamibii SPECT/CT and the radiomics-only model, demonstrating that the integration of 99mTc Sestamibi SPECT/CT and radiomics data provides improved diagnostic performance, with minimal false positive and false negative results.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".