MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Machine learning model integrating CT radiomics and circulating microRNAs to predict residual disease histology in metastatic non-seminoma testicular cancer (mNSTC).

2025· article· en· W4407701538 on OpenAlexaff
Güliz Özgün, Neda Abdalvand, Gizem Özcan, Ka Mun Nip, Nastaran Khazamipour, Arman Rahmim, Robert H. Bell, Maryam Soleimani, Corinne Maurice‐Dror, Kim N., Bernhard J. Eigl, Craig R. Nichols, Christian Kollmannsberger, Ren Yuan, Lucia Nappi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaBC Cancer Agency
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSeminomaRadiomicsTesticular cancerHistologyDiseaseCancerOncologyNomogramPathologyInternal medicineRadiologyChemotherapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

647 Background: The primary treatment of most mNSTC is chemotherapy followed by surgery if the residual disease (RD) is >1 cm. However, conventional imaging lacks the specificity to characterize the tissue, often leading to overtreatment. This study hypothesizes that integrating CT-driven radiomics features with plasma miR371 and miR375 will enhance the predictive accuracy of Machine Learning (ML) models to predict teratoma, viable germ cell (vGCT) and fibrosis/necrosis (F/N) in mNSTC patients with RD. Methods: 111 lesions from52 patients, including residual teratoma (n=57), F/N (n=33), vGCT (n=10), and additional seminoma (n=11) for training purposes were included, split into training (N=78) and test cohorts (N=33). Lesions were lymph nodes (n=87), lung (n=21), and brain (n=3) with a median size of 1.6 cm (Q1-Q3 interval=1.2-2.73 cm). 3D Slicer version 5.6.1 was used to segment the RD > 1 cm (short axis) and extract radiomics features. Plasma miRNA levels before resection were measured by RT-PCR. Random Forest (RF), Support Vector Machine (SVM), Gradient Boosting (GB), and CatBoost (CB) ML models were evaluated to define the operating characteristics of radiomics alone (R-only) and in combination with miR371 (371) and/or miR375 (375) levels in predicting teratoma, vGCT and F/N. Results: For predicting teratoma, the best models were RF (R+375 and R+371+375), CB (R+371+375), and GB (R+371 and R+371+375). While adding miR371 or miR375 to R-only slightly improved AUC across models, the best results were achieved with the R+375+371 dataset. CB achieved AUCs ranging from 0.94 to 0.97 in training and 0.81 to 0.93 in test sets, with its highest AUC of 0.93 (95% CI: 0.78-0.97) on the R+375+371 dataset to differentiate all three classes. Similarly, GB demonstrated strong performance, achieving its highest AUC of 0.93 (95% CI: 0.79-0.96) on the R+375+371 dataset (Table). Conclusions: Integration of plasma miR371, miR375 and radiomics improved accuracy of predicting histologies across all ML models. These methods could be used to characterize the histology of RD in mNSTC patients to better inform treatment decisions. Further refinement, including incorporation of histological findings of the primary tumor, will be reported. AUC values of different ML algorithms on training and test sets. TRAINING SET TEST SET Model ±SD R R+375 R+371 R+375+371 Model (95% CI) R R+375 R+371 R+375+371 RF 0.93±0.05 0.95±0.04 0.95±0.03 0.96±0.04 RF 0.8(0.59-0.89) 0.85(0.72-0.93) 0.87(0.76-0.95) 0.91(0.78-0.95) SVM 0.84±0.06 0.84±0.09 0.89±0.11 0.89±0.09 SVM 0.72(0.54-0.80) 0.74(0.56-0.82) 0.83(0.69-0.92) 0.84(0.76-0.94) GB 0.94±0.04 0.91±0.08 0.95±0.05 0.97±0.03 GB 0.84(0.61-0.96) 0.89(0.77-0.97) 0.89(0.79-0.96) 0.93(0.79-0.96) CB 0.95±0.03 0.94±0.03 0.94±0.04 0.97±0.03 CB 0.81(0.6-0.93) 0.86(0.73-0.94) 0.89(0.78-0.97) 0.93(0.78-0.97)

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.437
Teacher spread0.388 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical ImagingFrench-language works237,207