Automated Lymph Node and Extranodal Extension Assessment Improves Risk Stratification in Oropharyngeal Carcinoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE Extranodal extension (ENE) is a biomarker in oropharyngeal carcinoma (OPC) but can only be diagnosed via surgical pathology. We applied an automated artificial intelligence (AI) imaging platform integrating lymph node autosegmentation with ENE prediction to determine the prognostic value of the number of predicted ENE nodes. MATERIALS AND METHODS We conducted a multisite, retrospective study of 1,733 OPC patients with pretreatment computed tomography who underwent definitive radiation therapy across three institutions. Malignant lymph nodes were segmented using a validated deep learning auto-segmentation model, and segmented lymph nodes were sequentially processed with a validated ENE prediction model to calculate number of nodes with AI-predicted ENE (AI-ENE) per patient. We evaluated associations of AI-ENE with disease outcomes using site-stratified, multivariable Cox regression, adjusting for human papillomavirus (HPV) status, smoking pack-years, tumor and nodal stage, age, and sex. We evaluated risk-stratification improvement when incorporating AI-ENE into the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG)-0129 risk groupings and derived American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) 8th edition staging with Uno C-indices and decision curve analyses. RESULTS Overall, median AI-ENE node number was 1 (range, 0-6). AI-ENE node number was independently associated with poorer distant control (DC; hazard ratio [HR], 1.44 [95% CI, 1.23 to 1.69]; P < .001) and overall survival (OS; HR, 1.30 [95% CI, 1.16 to 1.46]; P < .001). Increasing AI-ENE node number was incrementally associated with worse outcome, particularly DC ( P < .001). C-indices improved in the external data set when incorporating AI-ENE into RTOG-0129 groupings (OS: 0.70 v 0.65; DC: 0.65 v 0.57) and AJCC-8 stage (OS: 0.75 v 0.70; DC: 0.72 v 0.67; P < .001 for each). The largest improvements were observed among HPV-negative patients (C-index: +15% for OS, +14% for DC). CONCLUSION Automated, AI-ENE node number is a novel risk factor for OPC that may better inform pretreatment risk stratification and decision-making.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".