MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386826462 · doi:10.1016/j.media.2023.102972

Automatic Head and Neck Tumor segmentation and outcome prediction relying on FDG-PET/CT images: Findings from the second edition of the HECKTOR challenge

2023· article· en· W4386826462 on OpenAlexaff
Vincent Andrearczyk, Valentin Oreiller, Sarah Boughdad, Catherine Cheze Le Rest, Olena Tankyevych, Hesham Elhalawani, Mario Jreige, John O. Prior, Martin Vallières, Dimitris Visvikis, Mathieu Hatt, Adrien Depeursinge

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Image Analysis · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
FundersHasler StiftungSiemens HealthineersSchweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen ForschungNational Science Foundation
KeywordsArtificial intelligencePositron emission tomographySegmentationComputer sciencePopulationPercentileMedicineLeverage (statistics)Medical physicsMachine learningRadiologyMathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

By focusing on metabolic and morphological tissue properties respectively, FluoroDeoxyGlucose (FDG)-Positron Emission Tomography (PET) and Computed Tomography (CT) modalities include complementary and synergistic information for cancerous lesion delineation and characterization (e.g. for outcome prediction), in addition to usual clinical variables. This is especially true in Head and Neck Cancer (HNC). The goal of the HEad and neCK TumOR segmentation and outcome prediction (HECKTOR) challenge was to develop and compare modern image analysis methods to best extract and leverage this information automatically. We present here the post-analysis of HECKTOR 2nd edition, at the 24th International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention (MICCAI) 2021. The scope of the challenge was substantially expanded compared to the first edition, by providing a larger population (adding patients from a new clinical center) and proposing an additional task to the challengers, namely the prediction of Progression-Free Survival (PFS). To this end, the participants were given access to a training set of 224 cases from 5 different centers, each with a pre-treatment FDG-PET/CT scan and clinical variables. Their methods were subsequently evaluated on a held-out test set of 101 cases from two centers. For the segmentation task (Task 1), the ranking was based on a Borda counting of their ranks according to two metrics: mean Dice Similarity Coefficient (DSC) and median Hausdorff Distance at 95th percentile (HD95). For the PFS prediction task, challengers could use the tumor contours provided by experts (Task 3) or rely on their own (Task 2). The ranking was obtained according to the Concordance index (C-index) calculated on the predicted risk scores. A total of 103 teams registered for the challenge, for a total of 448 submissions and 29 papers. The best method in the segmentation task obtained an average DSC of 0.759, and the best predictions of PFS obtained a C-index of 0.717 (without relying on the provided contours) and 0.698 (using the expert contours). An interesting finding was that best PFS predictions were reached by relying on DL approaches (with or without explicit tumor segmentation, 4 out of the 5 best ranked) compared to standard radiomics methods using handcrafted features extracted from delineated tumors, and by exploiting alternative tumor contours (automated and/or larger volumes encompassing surrounding tissues) rather than relying on the expert contours. This second edition of the challenge confirmed the promising performance of fully automated primary tumor delineation in PET/CT images of HNC patients, although there is still a margin for improvement in some difficult cases. For the first time, the prediction of outcome was also addressed and the best methods reached relatively good performance (C-index above 0.7). Both results constitute another step forward toward large-scale outcome prediction studies in HNC.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.249
Threshold uncertainty score0.972

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.291 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations31
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical Image AnalysisSame topicRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical ImagingFrench-language works237,207