Different radiomics models in predicting the malignant potential of small intestinal stromal tumors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: To explore the feasibility of different radiomics models for predicting the malignant potential of small intestinal stromal tumors (SISTs), and to select the best radiomics model. Methods: A retrospective analysis of 140 patients with SISTs was conducted. Radiomics features were extracted from CT-enhanced images. Support vector machine (SVM), Decision tree (DT), Conditional inference trees (CIT), Random Forest (RF), K-nearest neighbors (KNN), Back-propagation neural network (BPNet), and Bayes were used to construct different radiomics models. The clinical data and CT performance were selected using univariate analysis and to construct clinical model. Nomogram model was developed by combining clinical data and radiomics features. Model performances were assessed by using the area under the receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC). The models' clinical values were assessed by decision curve analysis (DCA). Results: A total of 1132 radiomics features were extracted. Among radiomics models, SVM was better than DT, CIT, RF, KNN, BPNet, Bayes because it had the highest AUC with a significant difference (P<0.05). The AUC of the clinical model was 0.781. The AUC of the radiomics model was 0.910. The AUC of nomogram model was 0.938. Clinical models had the lowest AUC. Nomogram AUC were slightly higher than radiomics model, but the difference was not significant (P=0.48). The DCA of the nomogram model and radiomics model showed optimal clinical efficacy. Conclusions: The model constructed with SVM method was the best model for predicting the malignant potential of SISTs. Radiomics model and nomogram model showed high predictive value in predicting the malignant potential of SISTs.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".