Towards Interpretable AI in Personalized Medicine: A Radiological-Biological Radiomics Dictionary Connecting Semantic Lung-RADS and imaging Radiomics Features; Dictionary LC 1.0
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lung cancer remains the leading cause of cancer-related mortality worldwide, with survival strongly dependent on early detection. Standard-dose computed tomography (CT) screening using the Lung Imaging Reporting and Data System (Lung-RADS) standardizes pulmonary nodule assessment but is limited by inter-reader variability and reliance on qualitative descriptors, while radiomics offers quantitative biomarkers that often lack clinical interpretability. To bridge this gap, we propose a radiological-biological dictionary that aligns radiomic features (RFs) with Lung-RADS semantic categories. A clinically informed dictionary translating ten Lung-RADS descriptors into radiomic proxies was developed through literature curation and validated by eight expert reviewers. As a proof of concept, imaging and clinical data from 977 patients across 12 collections in The Cancer Imaging Archive (TCIA) were analyzed; following preprocessing and manual segmentation, 110 RFs per nodule were extracted using PyRadiomics in compliance with the Image Biomarker Standardization Initiative (IBSI). A semi-supervised learning framework incorporating 499 labeled and 478 unlabeled cases was applied to improve generalizability, evaluating seven feature selection methods and ten interpretable classifiers. The optimal pipeline (ANOVA feature selection with a support vector machine) achieved a mean validation accuracy of 0.79. SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) analysis identified key RFs corresponding to Lung-RADS semantics such as attenuation, margin irregularity, and spiculation, supporting the validity of the proposed mapping. Overall, this dictionary provides an interpretable framework linking radiomics and Lung-RADS semantics, advancing explainable artificial intelligence for CT-based lung cancer screening.
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 | 0.004 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
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".