Bayesian additive regression trees for machine learning to classify benign vs atypical lipomatous tumors on MRI
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Atypical lipomatous tumors (ALTs) are aggressive fat cell tumors that are distinguished from benign lipomas (SL) mainly through histopathology. Biopsy is needed for suspicious cases but can miss malignancy, so complete surgical removal and examination are essential. MRI is used but often can't differentiate ALT from SL. We introduce a machine learning method for tumor classification. Purpose: To characterize the classification performance of a Bayesian additive regression trees (BART) model, built from MR radiomic features, and compare it to the readings of a musculoskeletal radiologist in classifying atypical lipomatous tumors (ALTs) from simple lipomas. Materials and Methods: Retrospective data were collected from 5 medical institutions in North America, for a total of 437 patients; the mean age was 58 years ±12 years, with 248 men and 287 women. At each institution, at least T1-MRI images without contrast were collected from patients with suspected ALT prior to surgery. Histopathology was used as the reference standard. Radiomic features extracted from the MRI images were used to train the BART model and a random forest model for comparison of classification performance using a 10-fold cross-validation. Both models were compared with the classifications of an experienced (>10 years) musculoskeletal radiologist who scored the images on a 5-point scale. Results: A cohort of 423 patients was included, and 1132 radiomic features were extracted from each MR study. The BART model had an accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity of 77.07% (72.76%-80.99%), 77.67% (71.36%-83.16%), and 76.50% (70.28%-81.97%), respectively, when utilizing all predictors and aggregating training and testing data from all the cohorts, approximating the human reader at 78.72% (74.51%-82.53%), 76.21% (69.80%-81.85%), and 81.11% (75.25%-86.09%), respectively. In the external validation, the average area under the curve (AUC) value across cohorts between the BART model and the human reader differed by 0.04 AUC points. From the receiver operating characteristic curve, the AUC was calculated to be 84.72% (81.00%-88.50%) and 84.74% (81.00%-88.50%) for the BART and human reader, respectively. Conclusion: This study demonstrated that the BART model can distinguish ALT from lipoma with diagnostic performance comparable to an experienced human observer.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".