Image based prognosis in head and neck cancer using convolutional neural networks: a case study in reproducibility and optimization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the past decade, there has been a sharp increase in publications describing applications of convolutional neural networks (CNNs) in medical image analysis. However, recent reviews have warned of the lack of reproducibility of most such studies, which has impeded closer examination of the models and, in turn, their implementation in healthcare. On the other hand, the performance of these models is highly dependent on decisions on architecture and image pre-processing. In this work, we assess the reproducibility of three studies that use CNNs for head and neck cancer outcome prediction by attempting to reproduce the published results. In addition, we propose a new network structure and assess the impact of image pre-processing and model selection criteria on performance. We used two publicly available datasets: one with 298 patients for training and validation and another with 137 patients from a different institute for testing. All three studies failed to report elements required to reproduce their results thoroughly, mainly the image pre-processing steps and the random seed. Our model either outperforms or achieves similar performance to the existing models with considerably fewer parameters. We also observed that the pre-processing efforts significantly impact the model's performance and that some model selection criteria may lead to suboptimal models. Although there have been improvements in the reproducibility of deep learning models, our work suggests that wider implementation of reporting standards is required to avoid a reproducibility crisis.
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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".