Ultra-high dimensional confounder selection algorithms comparison with application to radiomics data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Radiomics is an emerging area of medical imaging data analysis particularly for cancer. It involves the conversion of digital medical images into mineable ultra-high dimensional data. Machine learning algorithms are widely used in radiomics data analysis to develop powerful decision support model to improve precision in diagnosis, assessment of prognosis and prediction of therapy response. However, machine learning algorithms for causal inference have not been previously employed in radiomics analysis. In this paper, we evaluate the value of machine learning algorithms for causal inference in radiomics. We select three recent competitive variable selection algorithms for causal inference: outcome-adaptive lasso (OAL), generalized outcome-adaptive lasso (GOAL) and causal ball screening (CBS). We used a sure independence screening procedure to propose an extension of GOAL and OAL for ultra-high dimensional data, SIS + GOAL and SIS + OAL. We compared SIS + GOAL, SIS + OAL and CBS using simulation study and two radiomics datasets in cancer, osteosarcoma and gliosarcoma. The two radiomics studies and the simulation study identified SIS + GOAL as the optimal variable selection algorithm.
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 | 0.035 | 0.079 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".