MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Semi-Supervised Learning for Improved Radiomics-Based Outcome Prediction from Lymphoma [${ }^{18}\mathrm{F}]\text{FDG}$ PET Images

2025· article· W4417472315 on OpenAlexaff
Mohammad R. Salmanpour, A. A. Gorji, Amir Ali Feiz, Massoud Houshmand, Somayeh Sadat Mehrnia, Arman Rahmim

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Language
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging
Canadian institutionsTeck (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFeature selectionRadiomicsPattern recognition (psychology)Logistic regressionFeature extractionFeature (linguistics)LymphomaDimensionality reduction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PET imaging is integral to lymphoma management, offering valuable functional insights and quantitative biomarkers towards personalized treatment planning. In this study, we utilized radiomics features (RF) and machine learning (ML) to predict Relapse-Free Survival (RFS) in lymphoma patients. A total of 484 RFs were extracted from PET scans of 776 patients across two lymphoma datasets, including 631 samples from the 2024-SNMMI-Challenge (296 with and 335 without RFS labels) and 145 from AutoPET (unlabeled). RF extraction was performed using the RaCaT software. The labeled data were partitioned, with 80% used for 5-fold cross-validation and the remaining 20% reserved for final testing. We explored both supervised learning (SL) and semisupervised learning (SSL) strategies. The SL framework evaluated 56 dimensionality reduction methods (set to reduce feature size to 10), comprising 27 feature selection algorithms (FSA) and 29 attribute extraction algorithms (AEA), in combination with 29 classical and advanced classifiers. In the SSL framework, unlabeled samples from two additional datasets (480 patients) were pseudo-labeled using logistic regression and integrated into the training set within each fold. These pseudo-labeled cases were excluded from both validation and final testing. SSL consistently outperformed SL in terms of accuracy, F1-score, and AUC, with improvements reaching up to 14% (paired ttest, p-value <0.01). The best-performing SSL model, incorporating the ENet feature selector and MLP classifier, achieved an average cross-validation accuracy of 0.925 ± 0.003 and an external test accuracy of 0.811 ± 0.000. In comparison, the top SL model, with the same ML algorithms, achieved 0.809 ± 0.045 in cross-validation and 0.787 ± 0.018 in final testing. These findings emphasize the superiority of SSL in scenarios with limited labeled data and demonstrate the value of integrating multicenter PET-based RFs for robust survival prediction in lymphoma.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.286 · 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 topicRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical ImagingFrench-language works237,207