Radiomics and deep learning models to differentiate lung adenosquamous carcinoma: A multicenter trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Adenosquamous carcinoma (ASC) is frequently misdiagnosed or overlooked in clinical practice due to its dual histological components and potential transformation from either adenocarcinoma (ADC) or squamous cell carcinoma (SCC). Our study aimed to differentiate ASC from ADC and SCC by incorporating features of enhanced CTs and clinical characteristics to build radiomics and deep learning models. The classification models were trained in Xiangya Hospital and validated in two other independent hospitals. The areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUC), accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were used to estimate the performance. The optimal three-class classification model achieved a maximum AUC of 0.89 and accuracy of 0.81 in external validation sets, AUC of 0.99 and accuracy of 0.99 in the internal test set. These findings highlight the efficacy of our models in differentiating ASC, providing a non-invasive, timely, and accurate diagnostic approach before and during the treatment.
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 | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".