MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408835753 · doi:10.1186/s12885-025-13850-5

Radiomic-based approaches in the multi-metastatic setting: a quantitative review

2025· review· en· W4408835753 on OpenAlexaff
Caryn Geady, Hemangini Patel, Jacob Peoples, Amber L. Simpson, Benjamin Haibe‐Kains

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Cancer · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity of TorontoQueen's UniversityUniversity Health Network
FundersNational Cancer InstituteNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsSurgical oncologyLesionMedicineComputer scienceMedical physicsRadiologyPathologyOncology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Radiomics traditionally focuses on analyzing a single lesion within a patient to extract tumor characteristics, yet this process may overlook inter-lesion heterogeneity, particularly in the multi-metastatic setting. There is currently no established method for combining radiomic features in such settings, leading to diverse approaches with varying strengths and limitations. Our quantitative review aims to illuminate these methodologies, assess their replicability, and guide future research toward establishing best practices, offering insights into the challenges of multi-lesion radiomic analysis across diverse datasets. METHODS: We conducted a comprehensive literature search to identify methods for integrating data from multiple lesions in radiomic analyses. We replicated these methods using either the author's code or by reconstructing them based on the information provided in the papers. Subsequently, we applied these identified methods to three distinct datasets, each depicting a different metastatic scenario. RESULTS: We compared ten mathematical methods for combining radiomic features across three distinct datasets, encompassing 16,894 lesions in 3,930 patients. Performance was evaluated using the Cox proportional hazards model and benchmarked against univariable analysis of total tumor volume. Results varied by dataset and lesion burden, with no single method consistently outperforming others. In colorectal liver metastases (TCIA-CRLM, 494 lesions in 197 patients), averaging methods showed the highest median performance. In soft tissue sarcoma (TH CR-406/SARC021, 1255 lesions in 545 patients), concatenating radiomic features from multiple lesions exhibited the best performance. In head and neck cancers (TCIA-RADCURE, 15,145 lesions in 3188 patients), total tumor volume remained a strong predictor. These findings highlight dataset-specific influences, including tumor type and lesion burden, on the effectiveness of radiomic feature aggregation methods. CONCLUSIONS: Radiomic features can be effectively selected or combined to estimate patient-level outcomes in multi-metastatic patients, though the approach varies by metastatic setting. Our study fills a critical gap in radiomics research by examining the challenges of radiomic-based analysis in this setting. Through a comprehensive review and rigorous testing of different methods across diverse datasets representing unique metastatic scenarios, we provide valuable insights into effective radiomic analysis strategies.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.739
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.192
GPT teacher head0.457
Teacher spread0.266 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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