Radiomics analysis to predict pulmonary nodule malignancy using machine learning approaches
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Low-dose CT screening can reduce lung cancer-related mortality. However, most screen-detected pulmonary abnormalities do not develop into cancer and it often remains challenging to identify malignant nodules, particularly among indeterminate nodules. We aimed to develop and assess prediction models based on radiological features to discriminate between benign and malignant pulmonary lesions detected on a baseline screen. METHODS: Using four international lung cancer screening studies, we extracted 2060 radiomic features for each of 16 797 nodules (513 malignant) among 6865 participants. After filtering out low-quality radiomic features, 642 radiomic and 9 epidemiological features remained for model development. We used cross-validation and grid search to assess three machine learning (ML) models (eXtreme Gradient Boosted Trees, random forest, least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO)) for their ability to accurately predict risk of malignancy for pulmonary nodules. We report model performance based on the area under the curve (AUC) and calibration metrics in the held-out test set. RESULTS: The LASSO model yielded the best predictive performance in cross-validation and was fit in the full training set based on optimised hyperparameters. Our radiomics model had a test-set AUC of 0.93 (95% CI 0.90 to 0.96) and outperformed the established Pan-Canadian Early Detection of Lung Cancer model (AUC 0.87, 95% CI 0.85 to 0.89) for nodule assessment. Our model performed well among both solid (AUC 0.93, 95% CI 0.89 to 0.97) and subsolid nodules (AUC 0.91, 95% CI 0.85 to 0.95). CONCLUSIONS: We developed highly accurate ML models based on radiomic and epidemiological features from four international lung cancer screening studies that may be suitable for assessing indeterminate screen-detected pulmonary nodules for risk of malignancy.
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 | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".