MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Abstract B022: Prediction of radiotherapy-Induced esophagitis in non-small cell lung cancer using a 3D vision foundation model

2025· article· en· W4412163899 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Chloe Min Seo Choi, Jue Jiang, Nikhil P. Mankuzhy, John Chang, Jing Zeng, Carlos Vargas, James J. Urbanic, Isabella Choi, Mark McDonald, James R. Gray, Joseph O. Deasy, Maria Thor, Charles B. Simone, Harini Veeraraghavan

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Cancer Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLung Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRadiation therapyLung cancerEsophagitisCancerFoundation (evidence)Internal medicineOncologyDiseaseReflux

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction: Radiotherapy (RT)-induced acute esophagitis (AE) is a common side effect in lung cancer patients receiving RT, which can significantly impact their quality of life. This highlights the need for a predictive model that can estimate AE risk in advance using pretreatment imaging data. However, collecting sufficient data for model development is often resource-intensive and costly. Additionally, acquiring a homogeneous training dataset (e.g., from a single center or modality) is not always feasible. This study aimed to develop an automated artificial intelligence-based 3D vision foundation model (VFM) combining standard-of-care planning computed tomography (pCT) and planned radiation dose maps to predict grade II or higher AE. Materials and methods: This study included 246 patients with non-small cell lung cancer who underwent either image-guided radiation treatment (IMRT) or proton-beam radiation therapy. The endpoint was grade two or higher AE (33% positive and 67% negative). The IMRT group consisted of 182 patients from a single center, whereas the proton therapy group included 64 patients from the Proton Collaborative Group trial from 11 different institutions. For each patient, pCT, dose maps, and radiotherapy segmentations were available. The VFM was created using a transformer pretrained using a large number of unlabeled volumetric 3D CTs from patients with varied diseases through a self-supervised learning approach, which extracts useful features directly from images. Next, the pretrained encoder was combined with fully connected classification layers and fine-tuned using stratified 5-fold cross-validation with 20 patients set aside for testing. We developed two models: a CT only and CT + dose model. Model performance was assessed using the area under the curve (AUC), specificity, and sensitivity. Results: In cross-validation, adding dose information to CT (CT+Dose) improved model performance, increasing AUC from 0.72 ± 0.08 to 0.76 ± 0.10 and specificity from 0.82 ± 0.09 to 0.87 ± 0.04, while sensitivity remained the same. On the independent test set, CT+Dose showed a marked improvement over CT only (AUC: 0.82 vs. 0.59; sensitivity: 0.57 vs. 0.14), with a slight decrease in specificity (0.77 vs. 1.00). Conclusion: A VFM model combining CT and radiation dose showed the capability to predict AE more accurately with higher specificity. Further studies on larger cohorts of testing patients are planned to assess model generalization. Citation Format: Chloe Min Seo Choi, Jue Jiang, Nikhil Mankuzhy, John Chang, Jing Zeng, Carlos Vargas, James Urbanic, Isabella Choi, Mark Mcdonald, James Gray, Joseph Deasy, Maria Thor, Charles Simone, Harini Veeraraghavan. Prediction of radiotherapy-Induced esophagitis in non-small cell lung cancer using a 3D vision foundation model [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the AACR Special Conference in Cancer Research: Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning; 2025 Jul 10-12; Montreal, QC, Canada. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Clin Cancer Res 2025;31(13_Suppl):Abstract nr B022.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.045

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.160
GPT teacher head0.530
Teacher spread0.370 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Cancer Research→Same topicLung Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment→French-language works237,207→