Data augmented lung cancer prediction framework using the nested case control NLST cohort
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: In the context of lung cancer screening, the scarcity of well-labeled medical images poses a significant challenge to implement supervised learning-based deep learning methods. While data augmentation is an effective technique for countering the difficulties caused by insufficient data, it has not been fully explored in the context of lung cancer screening. In this research study, we analyzed the state-of-the-art (SOTA) data augmentation techniques for lung cancer binary prediction. Methods: To comprehensively evaluate the efficiency of data augmentation approaches, we considered the nested case control National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) cohort comprising of 253 individuals who had the commonly used CT scans without contrast. The CT scans were pre-processed into three-dimensional volumes based on the lung nodule annotations. Subsequently, we evaluated five basic (online) and two generative model-based offline data augmentation methods with ten state-of-the-art (SOTA) 3D deep learning-based lung cancer prediction models. Results: Our results demonstrated that the performance improvement by data augmentation was highly dependent on approach used. The Cutmix method resulted in the highest average performance improvement across all three metrics: 1.07%, 3.29%, 1.19% for accuracy, F1 score and AUC, respectively. MobileNetV2 with a simple data augmentation approach achieved the best AUC of 0.8719 among all lung cancer predictors, demonstrating a 7.62% improvement compared to baseline. Furthermore, the MED-DDPM data augmentation approach was able to improve prediction performance by rebalancing the training set and adding moderately synthetic data. Conclusions: The effectiveness of online and offline data augmentation methods were highly sensitive to the prediction model, highlighting the importance of carefully selecting the optimal data augmentation method. Our findings suggest that certain traditional methods can provide more stable and higher performance compared to SOTA online data augmentation approaches. Overall, these results offer meaningful insights for the development and clinical integration of data augmented deep learning tools for lung cancer screening.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".