Explainable Radiomics-Based Model for Automatic Image Quality Assessment in Breast Cancer DCE MRI Data
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aims to develop an explainable radiomics-based model for the automatic assessment of image quality in breast cancer Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging (DCE-MRI) data. A cohort of 280 images obtained from a public database was annotated by two clinical experts, resulting in 110 high-quality and 110 low-quality images. The proposed methodology involved the extraction of 819 radiomic features and 2 No-Reference image quality metrics per patient, using both the whole image and the background as regions of interest. Feature extraction was performed under two scenarios: (i) from a sample of 12 slices per patient, and (ii) from the middle slice of each patient. Following model training, a range of machine learning classifiers were applied with explainability assessed through SHapley Additive Explanations (SHAP). The best performance was achieved in the second scenario, where combining features from the whole image and background with a support vector machine classifier yielded sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and AUC values of 85.51%, 80.01%, 82.76%, and 89.37%, respectively. This proposed model demonstrates potential for integration into clinical practice and may also serve as a valuable resource for large-scale repositories and subgroup analyses aimed at ensuring fairness and explainability.
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.
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 | 0.003 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it