An Explainable MRI-Radiomic Quantum Neural Network to Differentiate Between Large Brain Metastases and High-Grade Glioma Using Quantum Annealing for Feature Selection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Solitary large brain metastases (LBM) and high-grade gliomas (HGG) are sometimes hard to differentiate on MRI. The management differs significantly between these two entities, and non-invasive methods that help differentiate between them are eagerly needed to avoid potentially morbid biopsies and surgical procedures. We explore herein the performance and interpretability of an MRI-radiomics variational quantum neural network (QNN) using a quantum-annealing mutual-information (MI) feature selection approach. We retrospectively included 423 patients with HGG and LBM (> 2 cm) who had a contrast-enhanced T1-weighted (CE-T1) MRI between 2012 and 2019. After exclusion, 72 HGG and 129 LBM were kept. Tumors were manually segmented, and a 5-mm peri-tumoral ring was created. MRI images were pre-processed, and 1813 radiomic features were extracted. A set of best features based on MI was selected. MI and conditional-MI were embedded into a quadratic unconstrained binary optimization (QUBO) formulation that was mapped to an Ising-model and submitted to D'Wave's quantum annealer to solve for the best combination of 10 features. The 10 selected features were embedded into a 2-qubits QNN using PennyLane library. The model was evaluated for balanced-accuracy (bACC) and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC-AUC) on the test set. The model performance was benchmarked against two classical models: dense neural networks (DNN) and extreme gradient boosting (XGB). Shapley values were calculated to interpret sample-wise predictions on the test set. The best 10-feature combination included 6 tumor and 4 ring features. For QNN, DNN, and XGB, respectively, training ROC-AUC was 0.86, 0.95, and 0.94; test ROC-AUC was 0.76, 0.75, and 0.79; and test bACC was 0.74, 0.73, and 0.72. The two most influential features were tumor Laplacian-of-Gaussian-GLRLM-Entropy and sphericity. We developed an accurate interpretable QNN model with quantum-informed feature selection to differentiate between LBM and HGG on CE-T1 brain MRI. The model performance is comparable to state-of-the-art classical models.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".