Predicting stereotactic radiosurgery outcomes with multi-observer qualitative appearance labelling versus MRI radiomics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Qualitative observer-based and quantitative radiomics-based analyses of T1w contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (T1w-CE MRI) have both been shown to predict the outcomes of brain metastasis (BM) stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS). Comparison of these methods and interpretation of radiomics-based machine learning (ML) models remains limited. To address this need, we collected a dataset of n = 123 BMs from 99 patients including 12 clinical features, 107 pre-treatment T1w-CE MRI radiomic features, and BM post-SRS progression scores. A previously published outcome model using SRS dose prescription and five-way BM qualitative appearance scoring was evaluated. We found high qualitative scoring interobserver variability across five observers that negatively impacted the model's risk stratification. Radiomics-based ML models trained to replicate the qualitative scoring did so with high accuracy (bootstrap-corrected AUC = 0.84-0.94), but risk stratification using these replicated qualitative scores remained poor. Radiomics-based ML models trained to directly predict post-SRS progression offered enhanced risk stratification (Kaplan-Meier rank-sum p = 0.0003) compared to using qualitative appearance. The qualitative appearance scoring enabled interpretation of the progression radiomics-based ML model, with necrotic BMs and a subset of heterogeneous BMs predicted as being at high-risk of post-SRS progression, in agreement with current radiobiological understanding. Our study's results show that while radiomics-based SRS outcome models out-perform qualitative appearance analysis, qualitative appearance still provides critical insight into ML model operation.
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 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".