MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413856517 · doi:10.1093/noajnl/vdaf166.041

43 NATURAL LANGUAGE PROCESSING MODEL-BASED SOLUTION FOR LABELING BRAIN METASTASIS IN RADIOLOGY REPORTS

2025· article· en· W4413856517 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Tianyu Liu, Hui Zuo, Eugene Batuyong, Salomey Kellett, Cristiano Giuffrida, C K Affana, Marco Istasy, Saumya Das, Errol Colak, Y Yuam

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuro-Oncology Advances · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBrain metastasisComputer scienceNatural language processingMetastasisArtificial intelligenceMedicineInternal medicineCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Brain Cancer Canada Travel Award Recipient Brain metastases (BM) far exceed primary CNS tumours and constitute the majority workload for neuro-oncology care providers. Canadian Cancer Registry captures ~2800 BM identified at the primary cancer diagnosis in stage IV cancer patients, while we estimated that ~10,000 Canadians are diagnosed with BM annually. We aim to develop a natural language processing (NLP) algorithm to scan radiology reports on cancer patients to capture BM diagnoses as they occur. Using the population-based cancer registry data in Alberta Canada, we identified a cancer cohort diagnosed between 2012–2019, with follow-up reports up to 2022. All radiology reports at and post-cancer diagnosis that are related to brain/head were identified for this cohort. A subset of 1817 samples was then manually labeled for BM (yes/no) as a training dataset. We trained two BioBERT models, one using the “Findings” section and the other using the “Impressions” section of these reports. We predicted the BM label as yes when the probability estimate of either model is greater than a threshold. For testing, 1585 reports containing both the “Findings” and “Impressions” sections were selected. These reports were independently labeled by an annotator for external model evaluation. Using a threshold of 0.4, our ensembled model achieved 94.3% accuracy on BM predictions. Our model yielded an F1 score of 0.788, positive predictive value of 0.702, and sensitivity of 0.898. Model performance is currently being evaluated with radiology reports in Ontario, with results expected by the end of May.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.943
Threshold uncertainty score0.565

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.346 · 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.

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 venueNeuro-Oncology AdvancesSame topicRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical ImagingFrench-language works237,207