MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414860999 · doi:10.1093/radadv/umaf036

Bayesian additive regression trees for machine learning to classify benign vs atypical lipomatous tumors on MRI

2025· article· en· W4414860999 on OpenAlexaff
Felipe Godinez, Nimu Yuan, Rijul Garg, Yasser G. Abdelhafez, Anik Roy, Hande Nalbant, Cyrus Bateni, Jinyi Qi, Michelle Zhang, Sonia Lee, Ahmed W. Moawad, Khaled M. Elsayes, Michele Guindani, Lorenzo Nardo

Bibliographic record

VenueRadiology Advances · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSarcoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health Centre
FundersNational Cancer InstituteNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsBayesian probabilityPattern recognition (psychology)RegressionRandom forestNaive Bayes classifierDecision treeLinear regressionFeature (linguistics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.048

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.301 · 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 venueRadiology AdvancesSame topicSarcoma Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207