Machine Learning-Based Prognostic Modelling Using MRI Radiomic Data in Cervical Cancer Treated with Definitive Chemoradiotherapy and Brachytherapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study aims to evaluate the contribution of clinical and radiomic features to machine learning-based models for survival prediction in patients with locally advanced cervical cancer. METHODS: Clinical and radiomic data from 161 patients were retrospectively collected from a single center. Radiomic features were obtained from contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) T1-weighted (T1W), T2-weighted (T2W), and diffusion-weighted (DWI) sequences. After data cleaning, feature engineering, and scaling, survival prediction models were created using the CatBoost algorithm with different data combinations (clinical, clinical + T1W, clinical + T2W, clinical + DWI). The performance of the models was evaluated using test accuracy, precision, recall, F1-score, ROC curve, and Bland-Altman analysis. RESULTS: Models using both clinical and radiomic features showed significant improvements in accuracy and F1-score compared to models based solely on clinical data. In particular, the CatBoost_CLI + T2W_DMFS model achieved the best performance, with a test accuracy of 92.31% and an F1-score of 88.62 for distant metastasis-free survival prediction. ROC and Bland-Altman analyses further demonstrated that this model has high discriminative power and prediction consistency. CONCLUSIONS: The CatBoost algorithm shows high accuracy and reliability for survival prediction in locally advanced cervical cancer when clinical and radiomic features are combined. The addition of radiomics data significantly improves model performance.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 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".