Summary Report of the SNMMI AI Task Force Radiomics Challenge 2024
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In medical imaging, challenges are competitions that aim to provide a fair comparison of different methodologic solutions to a common problem. Challenges typically focus on addressing real-world problems, such as segmentation, detection, and prediction tasks, using various types of medical images and associated data. Here, we describe the organization and results of such a challenge to compare machine-learning models for predicting survival in patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma using a baseline <sup>18</sup>F-FDG PET/CT radiomics dataset. <b>Methods:</b> This challenge aimed to predict progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, either as a binary outcome (shorter than 2 y versus longer than 2 y) or as a continuous outcome (survival in months). All participants were provided with a radiomic training dataset, including the ground truth survival for designing a predictive model and a radiomic test dataset without ground truth. Figures of merit (FOMs) used to assess model performance were the root-mean-square error for continuous outcomes and the C-index for 1-, 2-, and 3-y PFS binary outcomes. The challenge was endorsed and initiated by the Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging AI Task Force. <b>Results:</b> Nineteen models for predicting PFS as a continuous outcome from 15 teams were received. Among those models, external validation identified 6 models showing similar performance to that of a simple general linear reference model using SUV and total metabolic tumor volumes (TMTV) only. Twelve models for predicting binary outcomes were submitted by 9 teams. External validation showed that 1 model had higher, but nonsignificant, C-index values compared with values obtained by a simple logistic regression model using SUV and TMTV. <b>Conclusion:</b> Some of the radiomic-based machine-learning models developed by participants showed better FOMs than did simple linear or logistic regression models based on SUV and TMTV only, although the differences in observed FOMs were nonsignificant. This suggests that, for the challenge dataset, there was limited or no value seen from the addition of sophisticated radiomic features and use of machine learning when developing models for outcome prediction.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".