Predicting Therapeutic Response to Hypoglossal Nerve Stimulation Using Deep Learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To develop and validate machine learning (ML) and deep learning (DL) models using drug-induced sleep endoscopy (DISE) images to predict the therapeutic efficacy of hypoglossal nerve stimulator (HGNS) implantation. METHODS: Patients who underwent DISE and subsequent HGNS implantation at a tertiary care referral center were included. Six DL models and five ML algorithms were trained on images from the base of tongue (BOT) and velopharynx (VP) from patients classified as responders or non-responders as defined by Sher's criteria (50% reduction in apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) and AHI < 15 events/h). Precision, recall, F1 score, and overall accuracy were evaluated as measures of performance. RESULTS: In total, 25,040 images from 127 patients were included, of which 16,515 (69.3%) were from responders and 8,262 (30.7%) from non-responders. Models trained on the VP dataset had greater overall accuracy when compared to BOT alone and combined VP and BOT image sets, suggesting that VP images contain discriminative features for identifying therapeutic efficacy. The VCG-16 DL model had the best overall performance on the VP image set with high training accuracy (0.833), F1 score (0.78), and recall (0.883). Among ML models, the logistic regression model had the greatest accuracy (0.685) and F1 score (0.813). CONCLUSION: Deep neural networks have potential to predict HGNS therapeutic efficacy using images from DISE, facilitating better patient selection for implantation. Development of multi-institutional data and image sets will allow for development of generalizable predictive models. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: NA Laryngoscope, 134:5210-5216, 2024.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".