↓ Skip to main content

Radiomic Machine-Learning Classifiers for Prognostic Biomarkers of Head and Neck Cancer

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in oncology, December 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (58th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
323 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
326 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Radiomic Machine-Learning Classifiers for Prognostic Biomarkers of Head and Neck Cancer
Published in
Frontiers in oncology, December 2015
DOI 10.3389/fonc.2015.00272
Pubmed ID
Authors

Chintan Parmar, Patrick Grossmann, Derek Rietveld, Michelle M. Rietbergen, Philippe Lambin, Hugo J. W. L. Aerts

Abstract

"Radiomics" extracts and mines a large number of medical imaging features in a non-invasive and cost-effective way. The underlying assumption of radiomics is that these imaging features quantify phenotypic characteristics of an entire tumor. In order to enhance applicability of radiomics in clinical oncology, highly accurate and reliable machine-learning approaches are required. In this radiomic study, 13 feature selection methods and 11 machine-learning classification methods were evaluated in terms of their performance and stability for predicting overall survival in head and neck cancer patients. Two independent head and neck cancer cohorts were investigated. Training cohort HN1 consisted of 101 head and neck cancer patients. Cohort HN2 (n = 95) was used for validation. A total of 440 radiomic features were extracted from the segmented tumor regions in CT images. Feature selection and classification methods were compared using an unbiased evaluation framework. We observed that the three feature selection methods minimum redundancy maximum relevance (AUC = 0.69, Stability = 0.66), mutual information feature selection (AUC = 0.66, Stability = 0.69), and conditional infomax feature extraction (AUC = 0.68, Stability = 0.7) had high prognostic performance and stability. The three classifiers BY (AUC = 0.67, RSD = 11.28), RF (AUC = 0.61, RSD = 7.36), and NN (AUC = 0.62, RSD = 10.52) also showed high prognostic performance and stability. Analysis investigating performance variability indicated that the choice of classification method is the major factor driving the performance variation (29.02% of total variance). Our study identified prognostic and reliable machine-learning methods for the prediction of overall survival of head and neck cancer patients. Identification of optimal machine-learning methods for radiomics-based prognostic analyses could broaden the scope of radiomics in precision oncology and cancer care.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 326 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
China 2 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 321 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 65 20%
Researcher 57 17%
Student > Master 49 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 20 6%
Student > Bachelor 19 6%
Other 51 16%
Unknown 65 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 72 22%
Computer Science 48 15%
Engineering 39 12%
Physics and Astronomy 25 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 14 4%
Other 35 11%
Unknown 93 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 26 September 2016.
All research outputs
#16,063,069
of 25,394,764 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in oncology
#5,651
of 22,440 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#215,862
of 395,355 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in oncology
#27
of 74 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,394,764 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 22,440 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 395,355 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 74 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% of its contemporaries.