MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406412026 · doi:10.59275/j.melba.2024-24gc

Finding Reproducible and Prognostic Radiomic Features in Variable Slice Thickness Contrast Enhanced CT of Colorectal Liver Metastases

2025· article· en· W4406412026 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

VenueThe Journal of Machine Learning for Biomedical Imaging · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersNational Cancer InstituteNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsReproducibilityMedicineRadiologyThresholdingFeature (linguistics)Artificial intelligenceNuclear medicineComputer scienceMathematicsStatisticsImage (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Establishing the reproducibility of radiomic signatures is a critical step in the path to clinical adoption of quantitative imaging biomarkers; however, radiomic signatures must also be meaningfully related to an outcome of clinical importance to be of value for personalized medicine. In this study, we analyze both the reproducibility and prognostic value of radiomic features extracted from the liver parenchyma and largest liver metastases in contrast enhanced CT scans of patients with colorectal liver metastases (CRLM). A prospective cohort of 81 patients from two major US cancer centers was used to establish the reproducibility of radiomic features extracted from images reconstructed with different slice thicknesses. A publicly available, single-center cohort of 197 preoperative scans from patients who underwent hepatic resection for treatment of CRLM was used to evaluate the prognostic value of features and models to predict overall survival. A standard set of 93 features was extracted from all images, with a set of eight different extractor settings. The feature extraction settings producing the most reproducible, as well as the most prognostically discriminative feature values were highly dependent on both the region of interest and the specific feature in question. While the best overall predictive model was produced using features extracted with a particular setting, without accounting for reproducibility, (C-index = 0.630 (0.603-0.649)) an equivalent-performing model (C-index = 0.629 (0.605-0.645)) was produced by pooling features from all extraction settings, and thresholding features with low reproducibility (CCC ≥ 0.85), prior to feature selection. Our findings support a data-driven approach to feature extraction and selection, preferring the inclusion of many features, and narrowing feature selection based on reproducibility when relevant data is available.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.566
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.281 · 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