MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406497767 · doi:10.3390/cancers17020285

Enhanced Lung Cancer Survival Prediction Using Semi-Supervised Pseudo-Labeling and Learning from Diverse PET/CT Datasets

2025· article· en· W4406497767 on OpenAlexafffund
Mohammad R. Salmanpour, Arman Gorji, Amin Mousavi, Ali Fathi Jouzdani, Nima Sanati, Mehdi Maghsudi, Bonnie Leung, Cheryl Ho, Ren Yuan, Arman Rahmim

Bibliographic record

VenueCancers · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsLung cancerArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceMachine learningMedicineOncology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: This study explores a semi-supervised learning (SSL), pseudo-labeled strategy using diverse datasets such as head and neck cancer (HNCa) to enhance lung cancer (LCa) survival outcome predictions, analyzing handcrafted and deep radiomic features (HRF/DRF) from PET/CT scans with hybrid machine learning systems (HMLSs). Methods: We collected 199 LCa patients with both PET and CT images, obtained from TCIA and our local database, alongside 408 HNCa PET/CT images from TCIA. We extracted 215 HRFs and 1024 DRFs by PySERA and a 3D autoencoder, respectively, within the ViSERA 1.0.0 software, from segmented primary tumors. The supervised strategy (SL) employed an HMLS–PCA connected with six classifiers on both HRFs and DRFs. The SSL strategy expanded the datasets by adding 408 pseudo-labeled HNCa cases (labeled by the Random Forest algorithm) to 199 LCa cases, using the same HMLS techniques. Furthermore, principal component analysis (PCA) linked with four survival prediction algorithms were utilized in the survival hazard ratio analysis. Results: The SSL strategy outperformed the SL method (p << 0.001), achieving an average accuracy of 0.85 ± 0.05 with DRFs from PET and PCA + Multi-Layer Perceptron (MLP), compared to 0.69 ± 0.06 for the SL strategy using DRFs from CT and PCA + Light Gradient Boosting (LGB). Additionally, PCA linked with Component-wise Gradient Boosting Survival Analysis on both HRFs and DRFs, as extracted from CT, had an average C-index of 0.80, with a log rank p-value << 0.001, confirmed by external testing. Conclusions: Shifting from HRFs and SL to DRFs and SSL strategies, particularly in contexts with limited data points, enabling CT or PET alone, can significantly achieve high predictive performance.

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 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.851
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.302 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations18
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancersSame topicRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical ImagingFrench-language works237,207