A machine learning approach for prediction of auditory brain stem response in patients after head-and-neck radiation therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: The present study aimed to assess machine learning (ML) models according to radiomic features to predict ototoxicity using auditory brain stem responses (ABRs) in patients with radiation therapy (RT) for head-and-neck cancers. Materials and Methods: The ABR test was performed on 50 patients having head-and-neck RT. Radiomic features were extracted from the brain stem in computed tomography images to generate a radiomic signature. Moreover, accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, the area under the curve, and mean cross-validation were used to evaluate six different ML models. Results: Out of 50 patients, 21 participants experienced ototoxicity. Furthermore, 140 radiomic features were extracted from the segmented area. Among the six ML models, the Random Forest method with 77% accuracy provided the best result. Conclusion: According to the ML approach, we showed the relatively high prediction power of the radiomic features in radiation-induced ototoxicity. To better predict the outcomes, future studies on a larger number of participants are recommended.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| 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".