Longitudinal computed tomography-based delta-radiomics of visceral adipose tissue predicts infliximab secondary loss of response in Crohn’s disease patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND Visceral adipose tissue (VAT) plays a role in the pathogenesis of Crohn's disease (CD) and is associated with treatment outcomes following infliximab (IFX) therapy. We developed and validated the first delta-radiomics model to quantify VAT heterogeneity as a predictive biomarker for IFX response in patients with CD. AIM To develop a longitudinal computed tomography (CT)-based delta-radiomics model of VAT for predicting secondary loss of response (SLR) in patients with CD. METHODS This retrospective study included 161 patients with CD who achieved clinical remission following IFX induction therapy between 2015 and 2023. All patients underwent CT enterography before IFX initiation and after completing induction therapy. VAT volume was delineated by two radiologists in consensus. Radiomics features were extracted from pre-treatment and post-induction CT images, and delta-radiomics features were calculated as follows: Delta features = Feature-post - Feature-pre. A radiomics model was constructed using logistic regression. Model performance was assessed using discrimination, calibration, and decision curve analyses. RESULTS Nine significant delta-radiomics features were used to develop the delta-radiomics model, yielding an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.816 (95%CI: 0.737-0.896) in the training cohort and 0.750 (95%CI: 0.605-0.895) in the validation cohort. Multivariable logistic regression identified platelet count, Montreal behavior classification, and the VAT/subcutaneous adipose tissue volume ratio prior to treatment as independent risk factors for SLR. The combined model integrating clinical predictors and delta-radiomics features achieved superior predictive performance, with an AUC of 0.853 (95%CI: 0.786-0.921) in the training cohort and 0.812 (95%CI: 0.677-0.948) in the validation cohort. CONCLUSION We developed a predictive model based on longitudinal changes in VAT, demonstrating significant potential for identifying patients with CD at high risk of SLR to IFX therapy.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".