MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408362903 · doi:10.1186/s40644-025-00857-1

Robust vs. Non-robust radiomic features: the quest for optimal machine learning models using phantom and clinical studies

2025· article· en· W4408362903 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

VenueCancer Imaging · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityDouglas Mental Health University Institute
FundersUniversité de GenèveTehran University of Medical Sciences and Health ServicesSchweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen ForschungNational Science Foundation
KeywordsMedicineImaging phantomMedical physicsRadiomicsArtificial intelligenceMachine learningRadiologyNuclear medicineComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: This study aimed to select robust features against lung motion in a phantom study and use them as input to feature selection algorithms and machine learning classifiers in a clinical study to predict the lymphovascular invasion (LVI) of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The results of robust features were also compared with conventional techniques without considering the robustness of radiomic features. METHODS: An in-house developed lung phantom was developed with two 22mm lesion sizes based on a clinical study. A specific motor was built to simulate motion in two orthogonal directions. Lesions of both clinical and phantom studies were segmented using a Fuzzy C-means-based segmentation algorithm. After inducing motion and extracting 105 radiomic features in 4 feature sets, including shape, first-, second-, and higher-order statistics features from each region of interest (ROI) of the phantom image, statistical analyses were performed to select robust features against motion. Subsequently, these robust features and a total of 105 radiomic features were extracted from 126 clinical data. Various feature selection (FS) and multiple machine learning (ML) classifiers were implemented to predict the LVI of NSCLC, followed by comparing the results of predicting LVI using robust features with common conventional techniques not considering the robustness of radiomic features. RESULTS: Our results demonstrated that selecting robust features as input to FS algorithms and ML classifiers surges the sensitivity, which has a gentle negative effect on the accuracy and the area under the curve (AUC) of predictions compared with commonly used methods in 12 of 15 outcomes. The top performance of the LVI prediction was achieved by the NB classifier and RFE FS without considering the robustness of radiomic features with 95% area under the curve of AUC, 67% accuracy, and 100% sensitivity. Moreover, the top performance of the LVI prediction using robust features belonged to the NB classifier and Boruta feature selection with 92% AUC, 86% accuracy, and 100% sensitivity. CONCLUSION: Robustness over various influential factors is critical and should be considered in a radiomic study. Selecting robust features is a solution to overcome the low reproducibility of radiomic features. Although setting robust features against motion in a phantom study has a minor negative impact on the accuracy and AUC of LVI prediction, it boosts the sensitivity of prediction to a large extent.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.560
Threshold uncertainty score0.887

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
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 head0.083
GPT teacher head0.405
Teacher spread0.322 · 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