Explainable Radiomics-Based Model for Automatic Image Quality Assessment in Breast Cancer DCE MRI Data
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.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".