MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389785885 · doi:10.3389/fonc.2023.1280022

Multi-parametric MRI-based radiomics for preoperative prediction of multiple biological characteristics in endometrial cancer

2023· article· en· W4389785885 on OpenAlexaff
Changjun Ma, Ying Zhao, Qingling Song, Xing Meng, Qihao Xu, Shifeng Tian, Lihua Chen, Nan Wang, Qingwei Song, Liangjie Lin, Jiazheng Wang, Ailian Liu

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Oncology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEndometrial and Cervical Cancer Treatments
Canadian institutionsArtificial Intelligence in Medicine (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRadiomicsEndometrial cancerMedicineMagnetic resonance imagingRadiologyMedical physicsCancerOncologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose To develop and validate multi-parametric MRI (MP-MRI)-based radiomics models for the prediction of biological characteristics in endometrial cancer (EC). Methods A total of 292 patients with EC were divided into LVSI (n = 208), DMI (n = 292), MSI (n = 95), and Her-2 (n = 198) subsets. Total 2316 radiomics features were extracted from MP-MRI (T2WI, DWI, and ADC) images, and clinical factors (age, FIGO stage, differentiation degree, pathological type, menopausal state, and irregular vaginal bleeding) were included. Intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC), spearman’s rank correlation test, univariate logistic regression, and least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) were used to select radiomics features; univariate and multivariate logistic regression were used to identify clinical independent risk factors. Five classifiers were applied (logistic regression, random forest, decision tree, K-nearest neighbor, and Bayes) to construct radiomics models for predicting biological characteristics. The clinical model was built based on the clinical independent risk factors. The combined model incorporating the radiomics score (radscore) and the clinical independent risk factors was constructed. The model was evaluated by ROC curve, calibration curve (H-L test), and decision curve analysis (DCA). Results In the training cohort, the RF radiomics model performed best among the five classifiers for the three subsets (MSI, LVSI, and DMI) according to AUC values (AUCMSI: 0.844; AUCLVSI: 0.952; AUCDMI: 0.840) except for Her-2 subset (Decision tree: AUC=0.714), and the combined model had higher AUC than the clinical model in each subset (MSI: AUCcombined =0.907, AUCclinical =0.755; LVSI: AUCcombined =0.959, AUCclinical =0.835; DMI: AUCcombined = 0.883, AUCclinical =0.796; Her-2: AUCcombined =0.812, AUCclinical =0.717; all P<0.05). Nevertheless, in the validation cohort, significant differences between the two models (combined vs. clinical model) were found only in the DMI and LVSI subsets (DMI: AUCcombined =0.803, AUCclinical =0.698; LVSI: AUCcombined =0.926, AUCclinical =0.796; all P<0.05). Conclusion The radiomics analysis based on MP-MRI and clinical independent risk factors can potentially predict multiple biological features of EC, including DMI, LVSI, MSI, and Her-2, and provide valuable guidance for clinical decision-making.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.074
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.279 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations12
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in OncologySame topicEndometrial and Cervical Cancer TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207