MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414555061 · doi:10.3390/arm93050039

NSCLC EGFR Mutation Prediction via Random Forest Model: A Clinical–CT–Radiomics Integration Approach

2025· article· en· W4414555061 on OpenAlexaff
Anass Benfares, Badreeddine Alami, Sara Boukansa, Mamoun Qjidaa, Ikram Benomar, M. Serraj, Ahmed Lakhssassi, Mohammed Ouazzani Jamil, Mustapha Maâroufi, Hassan Qjidaa

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in respiratory medicine · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec en Outaouais
FundersUniversité Hassan II de Casablanca
KeywordsRandom forestEpidermal growth factor receptorFeature selectionGenotypingLung cancerMutationPrecision and recallFeature (linguistics)Cohort

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is the leading cause of cancer-related mortality worldwide. Accurate determination of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation status is essential for selecting patients eligible for tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs). However, invasive genotyping is often limited by tissue accessibility and sample quality. This study presents a non-invasive machine learning model combining clinical data, CT morphological features, and radiomic descriptors to predict EGFR mutation status. A retrospective cohort of 138 patients with confirmed EGFR status and pre-treatment CT scans was analyzed. Radiomic features were extracted with PyRadiomics, and feature selection applied mutual information, Spearman correlation, and wrapper-based methods. Five Random Forest models were trained with different feature sets. The best-performing model, based on 11 selected variables, achieved an AUC of 0.91 (95% CI: 0.81-1.00) under stratified five-fold cross-validation, with an accuracy of 0.88 ± 0.03. Subgroup analysis showed that EGFR-WT had a performance of precision 0.93 ± 0.04, recall 0.92 ± 0.03, F1-score 0.91 ± 0.02, and EGFR-Mutant had a performance of precision 0.76 ± 0.05, recall 0.71 ± 0.05, F1-score 0.68 ± 0.04. SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) analysis identified tobacco use, enhancement pattern, and gray-level-zone entropy as key predictors. Decision curve analysis confirmed clinical utility, supporting its role as a non-invasive tool for EGFR-screening.

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)0.003
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 score0.891
Threshold uncertainty score0.908

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.375
Teacher spread0.351 · 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 venueAdvances in respiratory medicineSame topicRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical ImagingFrench-language works237,207