Delta-radiomics in cancer immunotherapy response prediction: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The new immunotherapies have not only changed the oncological therapeutic approach but have also made it necessary to develop new imaging methods for assessing the response to treatment. Delta radiomics consists of the analysis of radiomic features variation between different medical images, usually before and after therapy. Purpose: This review aims to evaluate the role of delta radiomics in the immunotherapy response assessment. Methods: A systematic search was performed in PubMed, Scopus, and Web Of Science using "delta radiomics AND immunotherapy" as search terms. The included articles' methodological quality was measured using the Radiomics Quality Score (RQS) tool. Results: Thirteen articles were finally included in the systematic review. Overall, the RQS of the included studies ranged from 4 to 17, with a mean RQS total of 11,15 ± 4,18 with a corresponding percentage of 30.98 ± 11.61 %. Eleven articles out of 13 performed imaging at multiple time points. All the included articles performed feature reduction. No study carried out prospective validation, decision curve analysis, or cost-effectiveness analysis. Conclusions: Delta radiomics has been demonstrated useful in evaluating the response in oncologic patients undergoing immunotherapy. The overall quality was found law, due to the lack of prospective design and external validation. Thus, further efforts are needed to bring delta radiomics a step closer to clinical implementation.
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 | 0.020 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".