MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391111407 · doi:10.1186/s13014-024-02409-6

Development and validation of survival prognostic models for head and neck cancer patients using machine learning and dosiomics and CT radiomics features: a multicentric study

2024· article· en· W4391111407 on OpenAlexaff
Zahra Mansouri, Yazdan Salimi, Mehdi Amini, Ghasem Hajianfar, Mehrdad Oveisi, Isaac Shiri, Habib Zaidi

Bibliographic record

VenueRadiation Oncology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersÓbudai EgyetemSchweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen ForschungNational Science Foundation
KeywordsMedicineRadiomicsHead and neck cancerRadiation therapyHead and neckOverall survivalRadiologyOncologyMedical physicsSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to investigate the value of clinical, radiomic features extracted from gross tumor volumes (GTVs) delineated on CT images, dose distributions (Dosiomics), and fusion of CT and dose distributions to predict outcomes in head and neck cancer (HNC) patients. METHODS: A cohort of 240 HNC patients from five different centers was obtained from The Cancer Imaging Archive. Seven strategies, including four non-fusion (Clinical, CT, Dose, DualCT-Dose), and three fusion algorithms (latent low-rank representation referred (LLRR),Wavelet, weighted least square (WLS)) were applied. The fusion algorithms were used to fuse the pre-treatment CT images and 3-dimensional dose maps. Overall, 215 radiomics and Dosiomics features were extracted from the GTVs, alongside with seven clinical features incorporated. Five feature selection (FS) methods in combination with six machine learning (ML) models were implemented. The performance of the models was quantified using the concordance index (CI) in one-center-leave-out 5-fold cross-validation for overall survival (OS) prediction considering the time-to-event. RESULTS: The mean CI and Kaplan-Meier curves were used for further comparisons. The CoxBoost ML model using the Minimal Depth (MD) FS method and the glmnet model using the Variable hunting (VH) FS method showed the best performance with CI = 0.73 ± 0.15 for features extracted from LLRR fused images. In addition, both glmnet-Cindex and Coxph-Cindex classifiers achieved a CI of 0.72 ± 0.14 by employing the dose images (+ incorporated clinical features) only. CONCLUSION: Our results demonstrated that clinical features, Dosiomics and fusion of dose and CT images by specific ML-FS models could predict the overall survival of HNC patients with acceptable accuracy. Besides, the performance of ML methods among the three different strategies was almost comparable.

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.071

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.015
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 integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.331 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations24
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRadiation OncologySame topicRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical ImagingFrench-language works237,207