Deep Texture Analysis—Enhancing CT Radiomics Features for Prediction of Head and Neck Cancer Treatment Outcomes: A Machine Learning Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
(1) Background: Some cancer patients do not experience tumour shrinkage but are still at risk of experiencing unwanted treatment side effects. Radiomics refers to mining biomedical images to quantify textural characterization. When radiomics features are labelled with treatment response, retrospectively, they can train predictive machine learning (ML) models. (2) Methods: Radiomics features were determined from lymph node (LN) segmentations from treatment-planning CT scans of head and neck (H&N) cancer patients. Binary treatment outcomes (complete response versus partial or no response) and radiomics features for n = 71 patients were used to train support vector machine (SVM) and k-nearest neighbour (k-NN) classifier models with 1–7 features. A deep texture analysis (DTA) methodology was proposed and evaluated for second- and third-layer radiomics features, and models were evaluated based on common metrics (sensitivity (%Sn), specificity (%Sp), accuracy (%Acc), precision (%Prec), and balanced accuracy (%Bal Acc)). (3) Results: Models created with both classifiers were found to be able to predict treatment response, and the results suggest that the inclusion of deeper layer features enhanced model performance. The best model was a seven-feature multivariable k-NN model trained using features from three layers deep of texture features with %Sn = 74%, %Sp = 68%, %Acc = 72%, %Prec = 81%, %Bal Acc = 71% and with an area under the curve (AUC) the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) of 0.700. (4) Conclusions: H&N Cancer patient treatment-planning CT scans and LN segmentations contain phenotypic information regarding treatment response, and the proposed DTA methodology can improve model performance by enhancing feature sets and is worth consideration in future radiomics studies.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".