MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405098296 · doi:10.1088/2057-1976/ad9b30

Development of a machine learning tool to predict deep inspiration breath hold requirement for locoregional right-sided breast radiation therapy patients

2024· article· en· W4405098296 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueBiomedical Physics & Engineering Express · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging
Canadian institutionsFoothills Medical CentreAlberta Cancer FoundationUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLogistic regressionRandom forestRobustness (evolution)Artificial intelligenceMedicineBreast cancerSupport vector machineMachine learningComputer scienceNuclear medicineCancerInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background and purpose . This study presents machine learning (ML) models that predict if deep inspiration breath hold (DIBH) is needed based on lung dose in right-sided breast cancer patients during the initial computed tomography (CT) appointment. Materials and methods . Anatomic distances were extracted from a single-institution dataset of free breathing (FB) CT scans from locoregional right-sided breast cancer patients. Models were developed using combinations of anatomic distances and ML classification algorithms (gradient boosting, k-nearest neighbors, logistic regression, random forest, and support vector machine) and optimized over 100 iterations using stratified 5-fold cross-validation. Models were grouped by the number of anatomic distances used during development; those with the highest validation accuracy were selected as final models. Final models were compared based on their predictive ability, measurement collection efficiency, and robustness to simulated user error during measurement collection. Results . This retrospective study included 238 patients treated between 2016 and 2021. Model development ended once eight anatomic distances were included, and the validation accuracy plateaued. The best performing model used logistic regression with four anatomic distances achieving 80.5% average testing accuracy, with minimal false negatives and positives (<27%). The anatomic distances required for prediction were collected within 3 min and were robust to simulated user error during measurement collection, changing accuracy by <5%. Conclusion . Our logistic regression model using four anatomic distances provided the best balance between efficiency, robustness, and ability to predict if DIBH was needed for locoregional right-sided breast cancer patients.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.640
Threshold uncertainty score0.793

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.242 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it