Disparities in the diagnostic efficacy of radiomics models in predicting various degrees of cognitive impairment in patients with cerebral small vessel disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Aim to validate the diagnostic efficacy of radiomics models for predicting various degrees of cognitive impairment in patients with cerebral small vessel disease (CSVD). METHODS: Participants were divided into mild cognitive impairment group (mild-CSVD group) and sever cognitive impairment group (sever-CSVD group) according to Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) performance, 98 gender-age-education matched subjects served as normal controls. Radiomic features were extracted from the segmented hippocampus using PyRadiomics. The feature preprocessing involved replacing missing values with the mean, applying stratified random sampling to allocate subjects into training (80%) and testing (20%) sets, ensuring balance among the three classes (normal controls, mild-CSVD group, and sever-CSVD group). A feature selection method was applied to identify discriminative radiomic features, with the optimal texture feature chosen for developing diagnostic models. Performance was evaluated in both the training and testing sets using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis. RESULTS: The radiomics model achieved an accuracy of 0.625, an AUC of 0.593, a sensitivity of 0.828, and a specificity of 0.316 in distinguishing mild-CSVD group from normal controls. When distinguishing mild-CSVD group from sever-CSVD group, the radiomics model reached an accuracy of 0.683, an AUC of 0.660, a sensitivity of 0.167, and a specificity of 0.897. Similarly, in distinguishing sever-CSVD group from normal controls, the radiomics model exhibited an accuracy of 0.781, an AUC of 0.818, a sensitivity of 0.538, and a specificity of 0.947. CONCLUSION: Radiomics model based on hippocampal texture had disparities in the diagnostic efficacy of radiomics models in predicting various degrees of cognitive impairment in patients with CSVD.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".