Apriori prediction of chemotherapy response in locally advanced breast cancer patients using CT imaging and deep learning: transformer versus transfer learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) is a key element of treatment for locally advanced breast cancer (LABC). Predicting the response to NAC for patients with Locally Advanced Breast Cancer (LABC) before treatment initiation could be beneficial to optimize therapy, ensuring the administration of effective treatments. The objective of the work here was to develop a predictive model to predict tumor response to NAC for LABC using deep learning networks and computed tomography (CT). Materials and methods: Several deep learning approaches were investigated including ViT transformer and VGG16, VGG19, ResNet-50, Res-Net-101, Res-Net-152, InceptionV3 and Xception transfer learning networks. These deep learning networks were applied on CT images to assess the response to NAC. Performance was evaluated based on balanced_accuracy, accuracy, sensitivity and specificity classification metrics. A ViT transformer was applied to utilize the attention mechanism in order to increase the weight of important part image which leads to better discrimination between classes. Results: Amongst the 117 LABC patients studied, 82 (70%) had clinical-pathological response and 35 (30%) had no response to NAC. The ViT transformer obtained the best performance range (accuracy = 71 ± 3% to accuracy = 77 ± 4%, specificity = 86 ± 6% to specificity = 76 ± 3%, sensitivity = 56 ± 4% to sensitivity = 52 ± 4%, and balanced_accuracy=69 ± 3% to balanced_accuracy=69 ± 3%) depending on the split ratio of train-data and test-data. Xception network obtained the second best results (accuracy = 72 ± 4% to accuracy = 65 ± 4, specificity = 81 ± 6% to specificity = 73 ± 3%, sensitivity = 55 ± 4% to sensitivity = 52 ± 5%, and balanced_accuracy = 66 ± 5% to balanced_accuracy = 60 ± 4%). The worst results were obtained using VGG-16 transfer learning network. Conclusion: Deep learning networks in conjunction with CT imaging are able to predict the tumor response to NAC for patients with LABC prior to start. A ViT transformer could obtain the best performance, which demonstrated the importance of attention mechanism.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".