P.081 Chordoma management with artificial intelligence: a scoping review of current applications and future prospects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Chordomas are rare, malignant bone tumors that present significant challenges in management and treatment due to their complex anatomical locations and propensity for recurrence. Advancements in artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) show promise in improving chordoma management. Methods: A comprehensive literature search was conducted following PRISMA guidelines across multiple databases, including MEDLINE, Cochrane, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science. The search targeted articles related to AI and ML applications in clinical tasks associated with chordoma management. The selection process involved systematic screening, data extraction, and assessment of inter-rater variability. Results: The search yielded 1,006 records, with 18 included for analysis. Convolutional neural networks (CNNs) excelled in tumor volume estimation, with the state-of-the-art model achieving a Dice similarity score of 74.2%, sensitivity of 79.4%, and positive predictive value of 74.3%. Clustering algorithms were effective in prognostic evaluations. Bayesian models and logistic regression demonstrated robustness in diagnostics. Support vector machines (SVMs) were noted for their diagnostic precision. Conclusions: AI and ML algorithms, particularly CNNs, clustering algorithms, Bayesian models, logistic regression, and SVMs, show promise in improving chordoma management through enhanced imaging, diagnostics, and prognostics. Future research should focus on larger, externally validated datasets and explore underutilized techniques like multi-modal data integration.
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 | 0.009 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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".