Comprehensive Evaluation of Quantitative Measurements From Automated Deep Segmentations of PSMA PET/CT Images
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study performs a comprehensive evaluation of quantitative measurements as extracted from automated deep-learning-based segmentation methods, beyond traditional Dice Similarity Coefficient (DSC) assessments, focusing on six quantitative metrics, namely SUVmax, SUVmean, total lesion activity (TLA), tumor volume (TMTV), lesion count, and lesion spread. We analyzed 380 prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) targeted 18FDCFPyL PET/CT scans of patients with biochemical recurrence of prostate cancer, training deep neural networks, U-Net, Attention U-Net and SegResNet with four loss functions: Dice Loss, Dice Cross Entropy, Dice Focal Loss, and our proposed L1 weighted Dice Focal Loss (L1DFL). Evaluations indicated that Attention U-Net paired with L1DFL achieved the strongest correlation with the ground truth (Lin’s concordance correlation = 0.90–0.99 for SUVmax and TLA), whereas models employing the Dice Loss and the other two compound losses, particularly with SegResNet, underperformed. Equivalence testing (TOST, α = 0.05, = 20%) confirmed high performance for SUV metrics, lesion count and TLA, with L1DFL yielding the best performance. By contrast, tumor volume and lesion spread exhibited greater variability. Bland-Altman, Coverage Probability, and Total Deviation Index analyses further highlighted that our proposed L1DFL minimizes variability in quantification of the ground truth clinical measures. However, differences in DSC across the various loss functions did not reach statistical significance based on p-value analysis. The code is publicly available at: https://github.com/ObedDzik/pca_segment.git.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".