Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 94 references

Enhanced Lung Cancer Survival Prediction using Semi-Supervised Pseudo-Labeling and Learning from Diverse PET/CT Datasets

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Adding pseudo-labeled head-and-neck scans to lung-cancer training lifts two-year survival prediction accuracy from 0.65 to 0.85, the authors report.

desk verdict Cross-cancer pseudo-labeling for lung cancer survival is a reasonable idea, but the headline SSL-vs-SL comparison isn't matched, so the claimed gain isn't yet attributable to SSL. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.00068 v1 pith:42TSAYT4 submitted 2024-11-25 cs.CV physics.data-an

Mohammad R. Salmanpour , Arman Gorji , Amin Mousavi , Ali Fathi Jouzdani , Nima Sanati , Mehdi Maghsudi , Bonnie Leung , Cheryl Ho
show 2 more authors
Ren Yuan Arman Rahmim
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CVphysics.data-an
keywords lungcancersemi-supervisedlearningpseudo-labelingradiomicsPET/CTimagingoverallsurvivalpredictiondeepradiomicfeaturesanalysis
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper tries to establish that semi-supervised pseudo-labeling can break the small-labeled-data bottleneck in lung-cancer survival prediction by borrowing PET/CT images from head-and-neck cancer, a related disease with overlapping risk factors and radiomic appearance. The authors report that adding 408 pseudo-labeled head-and-neck cases to 199 labeled lung-cancer cases raises binary two-year overall-survival classification accuracy from 0.65±0.08 (supervised, deep features from CT, PCA+KNN) to 0.85±0.05 (semi-supervised, deep features from PET, PCA+MLP), a difference they call statistically significant. On the survival-analysis side, they report that PCA with Component-wise Gradient Boosting Survival Analysis on CT-derived features reaches an average concordance index of about 0.80 with log-rank p<0.001, confirmed on external testing. They conclude that combining deep radiomic features with semi-supervised learning lets a single modality, especially CT, reach high predictive performance in data-limited settings.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is pseudo-labeling with a cross-disease data pool. A Random Forest trained on four training folds of 199 lung-cancer cases assigns each of 408 head-and-neck PET/CT cases a binary label (survived beyond two years or not); those pseudo-labeled cases are added to the training folds, and the expanded set is fed through PCA dimensionality reduction into one of four classifiers. The other central component is the feature representation: 215 handcrafted radiomic features per image and 1,024 deep radiomic features from the bottleneck of a 3D autoencoder, both extracted from manually segmented primary tumors. For survival analysis, the key mechanism is PCA coupled with Component-wise Gradient Boosting Survival Analysis on CT-derived features, which stratifies patients into low- and high-risk groups with concordance around 0.80.

What would settle it

Run the same SSL pipeline with pseudo-labels randomly shuffled on the 408 head-and-neck cases; if accuracy stays at 0.85, the reported gain is not caused by pseudo-label content. Alternatively, evaluate the full pipeline on an independent lung-cancer cohort and require SSL to beat supervised-only training with p<0.05.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a semi-supervised pseudo-labeling scheme can improve lung-cancer overall-survival classification beyond what supervised learning achieves on the same labeled data, and that deep radiomic features extracted from PET/CT drive the gain. Specifically, a Random Forest trained on four of five folds of 199 lung-cancer cases labels 408 head-and-neck cancer cases; these pseudo-labeled cases are folded into the training set, and PCA plus an MLP classifier on 1,024-dimensional deep features from PET reaches an average accuracy of 0.85±0.05, versus 0.65±0.08 for supervised PCA+KNN on deep features from CT. On the survival-analysis side, the paper reports that PCA with Component-wise Gradient Boosting Survival Analysis on CT-derived features, whether handcrafted or deep, gives an average c-index around 0.80 with log-rank p<0.001, validated on external testing. The authors interpret these results as showing that SSL with related-disease data plus deep features can make CT-only prediction nearly as accurate as PET-based prediction in small-sample settings.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that head-and-neck cancer images labeled by a lung-cancer-trained Random Forest are similar enough to lung-cancer images that the pseudo-labels add useful supervision rather than systematic noise.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the finding holds, semi-supervised pseudo-labeling could let hospitals with small labeled cohorts draw on unlabeled or differently-labeled scans from related cancers.
  • If the finding holds, CT-only prediction with deep features plus SSL could offer a cheaper, more accessible prognostic alternative in settings where PET is unavailable.
  • If the finding holds, the specific recipe (PCA+MLP, deep features from PET, SSL) provides a concrete baseline for future lung-cancer overall-survival prediction studies.
  • If the finding holds, the reported survival models (CT features, PCA+CWGB, c-index around 0.80) could be used to stratify patients into risk groups for treatment planning.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • We infer that the gain should depend on how much the head-and-neck feature distribution overlaps the lung-cancer distribution; measuring that overlap directly and correlating it with the accuracy lift would give a sharper test than the paired t-test the paper uses.
  • We infer that confidence-thresholding pseudo-labels (keeping only head-and-neck cases the Random Forest labels with high probability) would likely reduce the noise the authors acknowledge; this is a direct extension of their own limitation note.
  • We infer that the survival-analysis pipeline could be extended to SSL if follow-up times for head-and-neck patients became available, since the paper currently excludes SSL from survival tasks for that reason; such an extension would require a principled way to pseudo-label censored times.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. This manuscript proposes a semi-supervised learning (SSL) pseudo-labeling framework for lung cancer (LCa) overall-survival prediction using handcrafted radiomic features (HRF) and deep radiomic features (DRF) from PET/CT. The authors extract features from 199 LCa patients and 408 head-and-neck cancer (HNCa) patients, pseudo-label the HNCa cases with a Random Forest trained on the LCa training folds, and compare SSL to supervised learning (SL) across PCA+classifier hybrids. They also perform survival analysis using PCA combined with four survival algorithms, reporting that SSL with DRF-PET and MLP reaches 0.85±0.05 accuracy versus 0.65±0.08 for SL with DRF-CT and KNN, and that CT-based CWGB survival models reach a c-index of about 0.80 with external testing.

Significance. If the central result were established, the study would offer a practical recipe for reducing labeled-data requirements in radiomics-based outcome prediction, and the finding that CT alone can match or exceed PET in SSL settings would have cost and availability implications. The code is publicly shared, and the systematic comparison of four classifiers and four survival algorithms within a fixed pipeline is a useful engineering contribution. However, the headline SSL-versus-SL comparison is confounded, and the statistical evidence as presented is not sufficient to attribute the observed gains to pseudo-labeling; the paper's practical significance therefore hinges on a matched re-analysis.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.1.2, Figure 4] The central claim that SSL outperforms SL is not supported by the comparison reported here. The best SSL configuration (DRF-PET, PCA, MLP: 0.85±0.05) is contrasted with the best SL configuration (DRF-CT, PCA, KNN: 0.65±0.08), which differs in both imaging modality (PET vs CT) and classifier (MLP vs KNN). A paired t-test across the five folds cannot validly attribute the difference to SSL, because the paired entries are not the same underlying model. The manuscript should report matched comparisons that hold modality, feature set, and classifier fixed and toggle only the pseudo-labeled augmentation, including the SL accuracy for DRF-PET+MLP and the SSL accuracy for DRF-CT+KNN; without such a table, the headline p<0.05 does not isolate pseudo-labeling.
  2. [Section 2.2 and Section 3.1] The five-fold paired t-test used throughout the results is anti-conservative because the same 408 pseudo-labeled HNCa samples are added to every training fold (Section 2.2). The fold-level accuracies are therefore not independent, so the effective sample size for the test is not five independent measurements. The authors should use a test that accounts for the shared pseudo-labeled data (e.g., a mixed-effects model with fold as a random effect, or repeated random train/test splits with re-fitting of the pseudo-labeling step), or at minimum report the per-fold accuracies and a confidence interval for the mean difference.
  3. [Section 3.2] The external nested testing C-indices are reported as '0.80±0' and '0.59±0.03' for the CWGB models. A zero standard deviation across external-test folds is implausible for a survival C-index and suggests either a single external split or a formatting error. The manuscript should state the number of external test patients (nominally 20% of 199, i.e., about 40) and report the distribution of the C-index across the external-test folds. As written, the '±0' notation obscures the reliability of the external validation, and the identical values reported for the HRF-CT and DRF-CT models are suspicious.
  4. [Section 2.2] The pseudo-labeling procedure assumes that the 408 HNCa cases can be labeled with a Random Forest trained on the LCa training folds, i.e., that the HNCa feature distribution is sufficiently aligned with LCa. The manuscript provides no diagnostic for this assumption: no overlap analysis of the feature spaces, no confidence threshold on the pseudo-labels, and no sensitivity analysis that, for example, retains only high-confidence pseudo-labeled cases. Given the known domain shift between head-and-neck and lung cancers, this is a correctness risk for the SSL gains; a quantitative check is needed before the claim 'SSL strategy outperformed SL method' can be accepted as generalizable.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 2.2] The list of feature-set combinations contains 'DRF-CT plus HRF-CT' twice; the second instance should presumably be 'DRF-PET plus HRF-PET'.
  2. [Figures 3 and 4] The legends include 'BR: Bagging Regression', but no Bagging Regression results are reported in the text; either remove the entry or report the corresponding results.
  3. [Throughout] There are several typos in headings and front matter, for example 'MATRIALS AND METHODS', 'CONFILICT OF INTREST', and 'ACHNOWLEDGEMNTS'; these should be corrected.
  4. [Section 3.1.2 and Abstract] The abstract and conclusion state '0.85' in places without the '±0.05' reported in the main text; the uncertainty should be reported consistently.
  5. [Section 3.2] The sentence beginning 'As depicted in Figure 6, the HRF frameworks...' is ambiguous about which models the word 'respectively' refers to, and the repeated external-test C-index values for the HRF and DRF models should be disentangled.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the SSL pipeline holds the validation fold out of pseudo-label generation, and the headline comparison is an empirical benchmark rather than an identity.

full rationale

The claimed results are empirical comparisons rather than analytical reductions. The pseudo-labeling step is standard self-training: the Random Forest is trained on the four training folds and used to label the 408 HNCa cases, while the remaining LCa fold is excluded from both label generation and model training, so the validation accuracy is not defined by the training labels. The two-year OS threshold is chosen from the average survival time as a study-design decision, not by optimizing the reported accuracy. The survival analysis uses a median/mean split and evaluates C-index on a nested held-out partition; no fitted coefficient is renamed as a prediction. Self-citations to ViSERA and the autoencoder are tool references and do not carry the central claim. The main validity concern is that the headline 'SSL outperforms SL' compares the best SSL configuration (DRF-PET + MLP) with the best SL configuration (DRF-CT + KNN), simultaneously changing modality and classifier, and the paired t-test across folds is anti-conservative because SSL folds share the same 408 HNCa cases. That is a statistical/comparison validity issue, not circularity: the numbers 0.85 and 0.65 are independent empirical outcomes, not constructed to be equal by definition.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the transferability of pseudo-labels across cancer types, the quality of the feature extractors from the authors' own ViSERA software, and several data-derived thresholds. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (6)
  • Number of PCA components = not reported
    PCA is used for all feature sets, but the number of retained components is not stated in the main text; it is presumably tuned via grid search or chosen by variance threshold.
  • Binary OS threshold (2 years) = 2 years
    The outcome is defined as survival beyond two years, chosen because it is the average survival time in the LCa dataset (Section 2.1). This is data-derived and affects all accuracy results.
  • Classifier hyperparameters = not reported in main text (Supplemental Table S2)
    Grid search optimizes MLP, SVM, KNN, and EV hyperparameters; these values are not in the main text and affect the reported accuracies.
  • Random Forest hyperparameters for pseudo-labeling = not reported
    The pseudo-labeler uses Random Forest, but its hyperparameters and the confidence threshold for assigning pseudo-labels are not specified, affecting the SSL training set.
  • Autoencoder architecture and training hyperparameters = not reported in main text (Supplemental Section 1.2)
    DRFs come from a 3D autoencoder in ViSERA; the architecture and training details are not given in the main text, but they determine the feature quality.
  • Low/high risk median split for survival analysis = median survival time
    Survival models use a median split of the training data to define risk groups; this threshold is data-dependent and affects the c-index.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Head-and-neck cancer and lung cancer share sufficiently similar radiomic feature distributions that pseudo-labeled HNCa data can improve LCa models.
    The SSL design depends on this transferability, argued in the Introduction via shared risk factors and squamous cell carcinoma histology, but not empirically validated in the paper.
  • domain assumption Pseudo-labels generated by a Random Forest trained on LCa training folds are accurate enough to serve as supervision for HNCa cases.
    The method adds all 408 pseudo-labeled HNCa cases to the training set without filtering by predicted confidence; if many pseudo-labels are wrong, the training signal is corrupted.
  • domain assumption The PySERA-extracted handcrafted features and the ViSERA autoencoder deep features capture prognostic information relevant to survival.
    The entire feature set is assumed to be predictive; no feature selection or ablation beyond PCA is performed, and the autoencoder is trained on images without survival labels.
  • standard math The held-out 20% external test set is independent and was not used for model selection or hyperparameter tuning.
    The paper claims this, but the grid-search details are in the missing supplement, so the claim cannot be verified from the main text.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Enhanced Lung Cancer Survival Prediction using Semi-Supervised Pseudo-Labeling and Learning from Diverse PET/CT Datasets." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/42TSAYT4

@misc{pith2026241200068,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Enhanced Lung Cancer Survival Prediction using Semi-Supervised Pseudo-Labeling and Learning from Diverse PET/CT Datasets},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/42TSAYT4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.00068}
}
read the original abstract

Objective: This study explores a semi-supervised learning (SSL), pseudo-labeled strategy using diverse datasets to enhance lung cancer (LCa) survival predictions, analyzing Handcrafted and Deep Radiomic Features (HRF/DRF) from PET/CT scans with Hybrid Machine Learning Systems (HMLS). Methods: We collected 199 LCa patients with both PET & CT images, obtained from The Cancer Imaging Archive (TCIA) and our local database, alongside 408 head&neck cancer (HNCa) PET/CT images from TCIA. We extracted 215 HRFs and 1024 DRFs by PySERA and a 3D-Autoencoder, respectively, within the ViSERA software, from segmented primary tumors. The supervised strategy (SL) employed a HMLSs: PCA connected with 4 classifiers on both HRF and DRFs. SSL strategy expanded the datasets by adding 408 pseudo-labeled HNCa cases (labeled by Random Forest algorithm) to 199 LCa cases, using the same HMLSs techniques. Furthermore, Principal Component Analysis (PCA) linked with 4 survival prediction algorithms were utilized in survival hazard ratio analysis. Results: SSL strategy outperformed SL method (p-value<0.05), achieving an average accuracy of 0.85 with DRFs from PET and PCA+ Multi-Layer Perceptron (MLP), compared to 0.65 for SL strategy using DRFs from CT and PCA+ K-Nearest Neighbor (KNN). Additionally, PCA linked with Component-wise Gradient Boosting Survival Analysis on both HRFs and DRFs, as extracted from CT, had an average c-index of 0.80 with a Log Rank p-value<<0.001, confirmed by external testing. Conclusions: Shifting from HRFs and SL to DRFs and SSL strategies, particularly in contexts with limited data points, enabling CT or PET alone to significantly achieve high predictive performance.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

94 extracted references · 78 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Epidemiology of lung cancer: Diagnosis and management of lung cancer, 3rd ed: American College of Chest Physicians evidence-based clinical practice guidelines,

    A. J. Alberg, M. V. Brock and et al, "Epidemiology of lung cancer: Diagnosis and management of lung cancer, 3rd ed: American College of Chest Physicians evidence-based clinical practice guidelines," Chest, vol. 143, no. 5, pp. e1S -e29S, May 2013

    2013

  2. [2]

    cancer statistics for the year 2020: An overview,

    J. Ferlay, M. Colombet and et al, "cancer statistics for the year 2020: An overview," Int J Cancer, vol. 149, no. 4, pp. 778 -789, Apr 5 2021

    2020

  3. [3]

    Demographic shift disproportionately increases cancer burden in an aging nation: c urrent and expected incidence and mortality in Hungary up to 2030,

    O. Menyhárt, J. T. Fekete and B. Győrffy, "Demographic shift disproportionately increases cancer burden in an aging nation: c urrent and expected incidence and mortality in Hungary up to 2030," Clin Epidemiol, vol. 10, pp. 1093 -1108, 2018

    2018

  4. [4]

    Update of Incidence, Prevalence, Survival, and Initial Treatment in Patients With Non –Small Cell Lung Cancer in the US,

    A. K. Ganti, A. B. Klein and et al, "Update of Incidence, Prevalence, Survival, and Initial Treatment in Patients With Non –Small Cell Lung Cancer in the US," JAMA Oncol, vol. 7, no. 12, pp. 1824 -1832, 2021

    2021

  5. [5]

    Lung cancer: current therapies and new targeted treatments,

    F. R. Hirsch, G. V. Scagliotti and et al, "Lung cancer: current therapies and new targeted treatments," Lancet, vol. 389, no. 10066, pp. 299 - 311, 2017

    2017

  6. [6]

    Global cancer surgery: delivering safe, affordable, and timely cancer surgery,

    R. Sullivan, O. I. Alatise and et al, "Global cancer surgery: delivering safe, affordable, and timely cancer surgery," The Lancet. Oncology, vol. 16, no. 11, pp. 1193 -1224, Sep 2015

    2015

  7. [7]

    Lung cancer survival period prediction and understanding: Deep learning approaches,

    S. Doppalapudi, R. G. Qiu and Y. Badr, "Lung cancer survival period prediction and understanding: Deep learning approaches," International Journal of Medical Informatics, vol. 148, p. 104371, 2021

    2021

  8. [8]

    Overall survival should be the primary endpoint in clinical trials for advanced non -small-cell lung cancer,

    P. K. Cheema and R. Burkes, "Overall survival should be the primary endpoint in clinical trials for advanced non -small-cell lung cancer," Curr Oncol, vol. 20, no. 2, p. e150 –e160, Apr 2013

    2013

Show all 94 references
  1. [9]

    Current and Future Development in Lung Cancer Diagnosis,

    R. Nooreldeen and H. Bach, "Current and Future Development in Lung Cancer Diagnosis," Int J Mol Sci, vol. 22, no. 16, p. 8661, Aug 12 2021

    2021

  2. [10]

    A brief introduction to weakly supervised learning,

    Z. Zhou, "A brief introduction to weakly supervised learning," National Science Review, vol. 5, no. 1, p. 44 –53, 2018

    2018

  3. [11]

    Preparing Medical Imaging Data for Machine Learning,

    M. J. Willemink, W. A. Koszek and et al, "Preparing Medical Imaging Data for Machine Learning," Radiology, vol. 295, no. 1, pp. 4 -15, 2020

    2020

  4. [12]

    Deep semi-supervised learning for brain tumor classification,

    C. Ge, I. Gu and et al, "Deep semi-supervised learning for brain tumor classification," BMC Medical Imaging, vol. 20, no. 87, pp. 1-11, 2020. 10

    2020

  5. [13]

    Self -labeled techniques for semi -supervised learning: taxonomy, software and empirical study,

    I. Triguero, S. García and F. Herrera , "Self -labeled techniques for semi -supervised learning: taxonomy, software and empirical study," Knowl Inf Syst, vol. 42, p. 245 –284, 2015

    2015

  6. [14]

    Supervised Learning,

    P. Cunningham, M. Cord and S. J. Delany, "Supervised Learning," in Machine Learning Techniques for Multimedia: Case Studies on Organization and Retrieval , Berlin, Heidelberg, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2008, pp. 21 -49

    2008

  7. [15]

    Semi-supervised learning for medical image classification using imbalanced training data,

    T. Huynh, A. Nibali and Z. He, "Semi-supervised learning for medical image classification using imbalanced training data," Comput Methods Programs Biomed, vol. 216, p. 106628, 2022

    2022

  8. [16]

    A new semi-supervised self-training method for lung cancer prediction,

    K. Shak, M. Al-Shabi and et al, "A new semi-supervised self-training method for lung cancer prediction," arXiv preprint arXiv:2012.09472, 2020

    2012 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Semi -supervised learning in cancer diagnostics,

    J. N. Eckardt, M. Bornhäuser and et al, "Semi -supervised learning in cancer diagnostics," Front Oncol, vol. 12, p. 960984, 2022

    2022

  10. [18]

    Risk factors for lung cancer worldwide,

    J. Malhotra, M. Malvezzi and et al, "Risk factors for lung cancer worldwide," Eur Respir J, vol. 48, no. 3, pp. 889 -902, 2016

    2016

  11. [19]

    Tobacco -related carcinogenesis in head and neck cancer,

    A. Jethwa and S. Khariwala , "Tobacco -related carcinogenesis in head and neck cancer," Cancer and Metastasis Reviews, vol. 36, pp. 411 - 423, 2017

    2017

  12. [20]

    Cramer , J

    J. Cramer , J. Grauer and et al, "Incidence of second primary lung cancer after low-dose computed tomography vs chest radiography screening in survivors of head and neck cancer: a secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial," JAMA Otolaryngology –Head & Neck Surgery, vol...

    2021

  13. [21]

    A mendelian randomisation study in UK Biobank and international genetic consortia particip ants,

    S. Larsson , P. Carter and et al, "A mendelian randomisation study in UK Biobank and international genetic consortia particip ants," PLoS medicine, vol. 17, no. 7, p. e1003178, 2020

    2020

  14. [22]

    Radiomics strategies for risk assessment of tumour failure in head -and-neck cancer.,

    M. Vallieres , E. Kay -Rivest and et al, "Radiomics strategies for risk assessment of tumour failure in head -and-neck cancer.," Scientific reports, vol. 7, no. 1, p. 10117, 2017

    2017

  15. [23]

    Total -body [18F]FDG PET/CT scan has stepped into the arena: the faster, the better. Is it always true?,

    L. Filippi and O. Schillaci, "Total -body [18F]FDG PET/CT scan has stepped into the arena: the faster, the better. Is it always true?," Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging, vol. 49, no. 10, pp. 3322 -3327, Aug 2022

    2022

  16. [24]

    Application of SPECT and PET / CT with computer -aided diagnosis in bone metastasis of prostate cancer: a review,

    Z. Chen, X. Chen and R. Wang, "Application of SPECT and PET / CT with computer -aided diagnosis in bone metastasis of prostate cancer: a review," Cancer Imaging, vol. 22, no. 1, p. 18, Apr 2022

    2022

  17. [25]

    Deep versus Handcrafted Tensor Radiomics Features: Prediction of Survival in Hea d and Neck Cancer Using Machine Learning and Fusion Techniques,

    M. R. Salmanpour, S. M. Rezaeijo and et al, "Deep versus Handcrafted Tensor Radiomics Features: Prediction of Survival in Hea d and Neck Cancer Using Machine Learning and Fusion Techniques," Diagnostics, vol. 13, no. 10, p. 1696, 2023

    2023

  18. [26]

    Prediction of Cognitive Decline in Parkinson’s Disease Using Clinical and DAT SPECT Ima ging Features, and Hybrid Machine Learning Systems,

    M. Hosseinzadeh, A. Gorji and et al, "Prediction of Cognitive Decline in Parkinson’s Disease Using Clinical and DAT SPECT Ima ging Features, and Hybrid Machine Learning Systems," Diagnostics, vol. 13, no. 10, p. 1691, 2023

    2023

  19. [27]

    The image biomarker standardization initiative: Standardized quantitative radiomics f or high - throughput image-based phenotyping,

    A. Zwanenburg, M. Vallières and et al, "The image biomarker standardization initiative: Standardized quantitative radiomics f or high - throughput image-based phenotyping," Radiology, vol. 295, no. 2, pp. 328 -338, 5 2020

    2020

  20. [28]

    Deep versus handcrafted tensor radiomics features: application to survival prediction in head and neck cancer,

    M. Salmanpour, M. Ramezani and et al, "Deep versus handcrafted tensor radiomics features: application to survival prediction in head and neck cancer," in EANM, 2022

    2022

  21. [29]

    ViSERA: Visualized & Standardized Environment for Radiomics Analysis,

    M. R. Salmanpour, M. Hosseinzadeh and e. al, "ViSERA: Visualized & Standardized Environment for Radiomics Analysis," Society of Nuclear Medicine, vol. 64, no. supplement 1, pp. P1131 -P1131, 2022

    2022

  22. [30]

    Deep Learning With Radiomics for Disease Diagnosis and Treatment: Challenges and Potential,

    X. Zhang, Y. Zhang and et al, "Deep Learning With Radiomics for Disease Diagnosis and Treatment: Challenges and Potential," Front Oncol, vol. 12:773840, p. 773840, 17 Feb 2022

    2022

  23. [31]

    A Comparative Study of Radiomics and Deep-Learning Based Methods for Pulmonary Nodule Malignancy Prediction in Low Dose CT Images,

    M. Astaraki , C. Wang and et al, "A Comparative Study of Radiomics and Deep-Learning Based Methods for Pulmonary Nodule Malignancy Prediction in Low Dose CT Images," Frontiers in Oncology, vol. 11, p. 737368, 2021

    2021

  24. [32]

    Radiomics, machine learning, and artificial intelligence —what the neuroradiologist needs to know,

    M. W. Wagner, K. Namdar and et al, "Radiomics, machine learning, and artificial intelligence —what the neuroradiologist needs to know," Neuroradiology, vol. 63, no. 12, pp. 1957 -1967, 2021

    1957

  25. [33]

    From Handcrafted to Deep -Learning-Based Cancer Radiomics: Challenges and Opportunities,

    P. Afshar, A. Mohammadi and et al, "From Handcrafted to Deep -Learning-Based Cancer Radiomics: Challenges and Opportunities," IEEE Signal Processing Magazine, vol. 36, no. 4, pp. 132 -160, July 2019

    2019

  26. [34]

    Robustness and Reproducibility of Radiomics Features from Fusions of PET -CT Images,

    M. R. Salmanpour, M. Hosseinzadeh and et al, "Robustness and Reproducibility of Radiomics Features from Fusions of PET -CT Images," J. Nuclear Med, vol. 63, no. supplement 2, p. 3179, 2022

    2022

  27. [35]

    Reliable and Reproducible Tensor Radiomics Features in Prediction of Survival in Head and Neck Cancer,

    M. R. Salmanpour , M. Hosseinzadeh and et al, "Reliable and Reproducible Tensor Radiomics Features in Prediction of Survival in Head and Neck Cancer," in EANM, 2022

    2022

  28. [36]

    Integrating deep and radiomics features in cancer bioimaging,

    A. Bizzego, N. Bussola and et al, "Integrating deep and radiomics features in cancer bioimaging," in IEEE Conference on Computational Intelligence in Bioinformatics and Computational Biology (CIBCB) , Siena, Italy, 2019

    2019

  29. [37]

    A Novel Framework for Hybrid Intelligent Systems,

    H. Hefny, A. Abdel-Wahab and et al, "A Novel Framework for Hybrid Intelligent Systems," in Multiple Approaches to Intelligent Systems , Berlin, Heidelberg, 1999

    1999

  30. [38]

    A New Hybrid Machine Learning for Cybersecurity Threat Detection Based on Adaptive Boosting,

    P. Sornsuwit and S. Jaiyen, "A New Hybrid Machine Learning for Cybersecurity Threat Detection Based on Adaptive Boosting," Applied Artificial Intelligence, vol. 33, no. 5, pp. 462 -482, 2019

    2019

  31. [39]

    Multitask outcome prediction using hybrid machine learning and PET -CT fusion radiomics,

    M. Salmanpour, G. Hajianfar and et al, "Multitask outcome prediction using hybrid machine learning and PET -CT fusion radiomics," in Journal of Nuclear Medicine , 2021

    2021

  32. [40]

    Machine learning methods for optimal prediction of outcome in Parkinson’s disease,

    M. Salmanpour, M. Shamsaei and et al, "Machine learning methods for optimal prediction of outcome in Parkinson’s disease," in n 2018 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium and Medical Imaging Conference Proceedings (NSS/MIC) , 2018

    2018

  33. [41]

    Machine learning for medical diagnosis: history, state of the art and perspective,

    I. Kononenko, "Machine learning for medical diagnosis: history, state of the art and perspective," Artificial Intelligence in medicine, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 89-109, 2001

    2001

  34. [42]

    Optimal feature selection and machine learning for prediction of outcome in Parkinson ’s disease,

    M. R. Salmanpour, A. Saberi and et al, "Optimal feature selection and machine learning for prediction of outcome in Parkinson ’s disease," Journal of Nuclear Medicine, vol. 61, no. supplement 1, pp. 524 -524, 2020. 11

    2020

  35. [43]

    Prediction of TNM stage in head and neck cancer using hybrid machine learning s ystems and radiomics features,

    M. R. Salmanpour, M. Hosseinzadeh and et al, "Prediction of TNM stage in head and neck cancer using hybrid machine learning s ystems and radiomics features," Medical Imaging 2022: Computer -Aided Diagnosis (spie), vol. 12033, no. sUPPLEMENT 1, pp. 648 -653, 2022

    2022

  36. [44]

    Tensor Deep versus Radiomics Features: Lung Cancer Outcome Prediction using Hyb rid Machine Learning Systems,

    M. R. Salmanpour, M. Hosseinzadeh and et al, "Tensor Deep versus Radiomics Features: Lung Cancer Outcome Prediction using Hyb rid Machine Learning Systems," in Journal of Nuclear Medicine , 2023

    2023

  37. [45]

    PET -CT Fusion Based Outcome Prediction in Lung Cancer using Deep and Handcrafted Radiomics Features and Machine Learning,

    A. Gorji, A. F. Jouzdani and et al, "PET -CT Fusion Based Outcome Prediction in Lung Cancer using Deep and Handcrafted Radiomics Features and Machine Learning," in Journal of Nuclear Medicine , 2023

    2023

  38. [46]

    A Hybrid Deep Learning Framework with Decision -Level Fusion for Breast Cancer Survival Prediction,

    N. A. Othman, M. A. Abdel -Fattah and A. T. Ali, "A Hybrid Deep Learning Framework with Decision -Level Fusion for Breast Cancer Survival Prediction," Big Data and Cognitive Computing, vol. 7, no. 1, p. 50, 2023

    2023

  39. [47]

    Koller and N

    D. Koller and N. Friedman, Probabilistic Graphical Models: Principles and Techniques - Adaptive Computation and Machine Learning, The MIT Press, 2009

    2009

  40. [48]

    Predictive data mining in clinical medicine: current issues and guidelines,

    R. Bellazzi and B. Zupan, "Predictive data mining in clinical medicine: current issues and guidelines," International journal of medical informatics, vol. 77, no. 2, pp. 81 -97, 2008

    2008

  41. [49]

    Principal component analysis: a review and recent development,

    I. Jolliffe and J. Cadima, "Principal component analysis: a review and recent development," Philosophical transactions of the royal society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences , vol. 374, no. 2065, p. 20150202, 2016

    2016

  42. [50]

    A review of principal component analysis algorithm for dimensionality reduction,

    B. Hasan and A. Abdulazeez, "A review of principal component analysis algorithm for dimensionality reduction," Journal of Soft Computing and Data Mining, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 20 -30, 2021

    2021

  43. [51]

    Survival analysis: A primer for the clinician scientists,

    S. Rai, P. Mishra and U. Ghoshal, "Survival analysis: A primer for the clinician scientists," Indian Journal of Gastroenterology, vol. 40, p. 541–549, 2021

    2021

  44. [52]

    Survival analysis —part 2: Cox proportional hazards model,

    S. V. Deo, V. Deo and V. Sundaram, "Survival analysis —part 2: Cox proportional hazards model," Indian J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg, vol. 37, no. 2, pp. 229 -233, 2021

    2021

  45. [53]

    A deep learning -based framework for lung cancer survival analysis with biomarker interpretation,

    L. Cui, H. Li and et al, "A deep learning -based framework for lung cancer survival analysis with biomarker interpretation," BMC Bioinformatics, vol. 21, no. 1, p. 112, 2020

    2020

  46. [54]

    Understanding survival analysis: Kaplan -Meier estimate,

    M. K. Goel, P. Khanna and J. Kishore, "Understanding survival analysis: Kaplan -Meier estimate," Int J Ayurveda Res, vol. 1, no. 4, pp. 274 - 8, 2010

    2010

  47. [55]

    Usage of Cox -Regression Model for Forecasting of Survival Rate in Patients with the Early Stage of Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer,

    O. P. Kolesnik, A. I. Shevchenko and et al, "Usage of Cox -Regression Model for Forecasting of Survival Rate in Patients with the Early Stage of Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer," Advances in Lung Cancer, vol. 3, no. 1, p. 26 –33, 2014

    2014

  48. [56]

    Novel Biomarker Prediction for Lung Cancer Using Random Forest Classifiers,

    Lavanya C, Pooja S and et al, "Novel Biomarker Prediction for Lung Cancer Using Random Forest Classifiers," Cancer Inform, vol. 22:11769351231167992, p. 11769351231167992, 21 Apr 2023

    2023

  49. [57]

    Lung Cancer Survival Prediction Using Random Forest Based Decision Tree Algorithms,

    R. Al Mamlook, "Lung Cancer Survival Prediction Using Random Forest Based Decision Tree Algorithms," in Proceedings of the International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations Management , Washington, DC, 2018

    2018

  50. [58]

    MR Imaging -Guided Attenuation Correction of PET Data in PET/MR Imaging,

    D. Izquierdo -Garcia and C. Catana , "MR Imaging -Guided Attenuation Correction of PET Data in PET/MR Imaging," PET Clin, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 129-149, Apr 2016

    2016

  51. [59]

    The use of standardized uptake values for assessing FDG uptake with PET in oncol ogy: a clinical perspective,

    G Lucignani, G Paganelli and E Bombardieri, "The use of standardized uptake values for assessing FDG uptake with PET in oncol ogy: a clinical perspective," Nucl Med Commun, vol. 25, no. 7, pp. 651 -656, Jul 2004

    2004

  52. [60]

    Intensity normalization of DaTSCAN SPECT imaging using a model -based clustering approach,

    A. Brahim, J.M. Górriz and et al, "Intensity normalization of DaTSCAN SPECT imaging using a model -based clustering approach," Applied Soft Computing,, vol. 37, pp. 234 -244, 2015

    2015

  53. [61]

    An Iterative Implementation of Level Set for Precise Segmentation of Brain Tissues and A bnormality Detection from MR Images,

    S. Roy, D. Bhattacharyya and et al, "An Iterative Implementation of Level Set for Precise Segmentation of Brain Tissues and A bnormality Detection from MR Images," IETE Journal of Research, vol. 63, no. 6, pp. 769 -783, 2017

    2017

  54. [62]

    Advanced Automatic Segmentation of Tumors and Survival Prediction in Head and Neck Cancer,

    M. R. Salmanpour, G. Hajianfar and et al, "Advanced Automatic Segmentation of Tumors and Survival Prediction in Head and Neck Cancer," in Head and Neck Tumor Segmentation and Outcome Prediction , Cham, 2021

    2021

  55. [63]

    ViSERA: Visualized & Standardized Environment for Radiomics Analysis - A Shareable, Executable, and Reproducible Workflow Generator,

    M. R. Salmanpour, I. Shiri and et al, "ViSERA: Visualized & Standardized Environment for Radiomics Analysis - A Shareable, Executable, and Reproducible Workflow Generator," in Proc. IEEE Medical Imaging Conference, 2023 , Vancouver, 2023

    2023

  56. [64]

    Prediction of Parkinson's disease pathogenic variants using hybrid Machine learning systems and radiomic features,

    G. Hajianfar, K. Samira and et al, "Prediction of Parkinson's disease pathogenic variants using hybrid Machine learning systems and radiomic features," Phys Med, vol. 113, p. 102647, 2023 Aug 12

    2023

  57. [65]

    Prediction of drug amount in Parkinson's disease using hybrid machine learning systems and radiomics features,

    M. R. Salmanpour, M. Hosseinzadeh and e. al, "Prediction of drug amount in Parkinson's disease using hybrid machine learning systems and radiomics features," International Journal of Imaging Systems and Technology, vol. 33, no. 4, pp. 1437 -1449, 2023

    2023

  58. [66]

    Approximation by superpositions of a sigmoidal function,

    G. Cybenko, "Approximation by superpositions of a sigmoidal function," Math. Control Signal Systems, vol. 2, no. 4, p. 303 –314, 1989

    1989

  59. [67]

    Support -vector networks,

    C. Cortes and V. Vapnik, "Support -vector networks," Machine Learning., vol. 20, no. 3, p. 273 –297, 1995

    1995

  60. [68]

    K-nearest neighbor,

    L. Peterson, "K-nearest neighbor," Scholarpedia, vol. 4, no. 2, p. 1883, 2009

    2009

  61. [69]

    A Library for Time-to-Event Analysis Built on Top of scikit -learn,

    S. Pölsterl, "A Library for Time-to-Event Analysis Built on Top of scikit -learn," Journal of Machine Learning Research, vol. 21, no. 212, p. 1–6, 2020

    2020

  62. [70]

    Gradient Boosted Models,

    S. Pölsterl, "Gradient Boosted Models," 2020. [Online]. Available: https://scikit -survival.readthedocs.io/en/stable/user_guide/boosting.html. [Accessed 9 January 2024]

    2020

  63. [71]

    Random survival forests,

    S. Pölsterl, "Random survival forests," 2020. [Online]. Available: https://scikit -survival.readthedocs.io/en/stable/user_guide/random - survival-forest.html. [Accessed 9 January 2024]

    2020

  64. [72]

    Comparison of the tree -based machine learning algorithms to Cox regression in predicting the survival of oral and pharyngeal cancers: analyses based on SEER database,

    M. Du, D. Haag and et al, "Comparison of the tree -based machine learning algorithms to Cox regression in predicting the survival of oral and pharyngeal cancers: analyses based on SEER database," Cancers, vol. 12, no. 10, p. 2802, 2020

    2020

  65. [73]

    Inference for the mean of large p small n data: A finite -sample high -dimensional generalization of Hotelling’s theorem,

    P. Secchi, A. Stamm and S. Vantini, "Inference for the mean of large p small n data: A finite -sample high -dimensional generalization of Hotelling’s theorem," Electronic Journal of Statistics, vol. 7, pp. 2005 -2031, 2013. 12

    2005

  66. [74]

    Pragmatic methods for reviewing exceptionally large bodies of evidence: systematic mapping re view and overview of systematic reviews using lung cancer survival as an exemplar,

    R. Lewis, M. Hendry and et al, "Pragmatic methods for reviewing exceptionally large bodies of evidence: systematic mapping re view and overview of systematic reviews using lung cancer survival as an exemplar," Systematic Reviews, vol. 8, no. 1, p. 171, 16 July 2019

    2019

  67. [75]

    Lung cancer survival prediction and biomarker identification with an ense mble machine learning analysis of tumor core biopsy metabolomic data,

    H. A. Miller, V. H. van Berkel and H. B. Frieboes, "Lung cancer survival prediction and biomarker identification with an ense mble machine learning analysis of tumor core biopsy metabolomic data," Metabolomics, vol. 18, no. 8, p. 57, 2022

    2022

  68. [76]

    Canadian Cancer Society. Prognosis and survival for lung cancer,

    "Canadian Cancer Society. Prognosis and survival for lung cancer," May 2020. [Online]. Available: https://cancer.ca/en/cancer - information/cancer-types/lung/prognosis -and-survival. [Accessed 2 September 2023]

    2020

  69. [77]

    Radiomics-Based Prediction of Overall Survival in Lung Cancer Using Different Volumes -Of-Interest,

    N. C. DAmico, R. Sicilia and et al, "Radiomics-Based Prediction of Overall Survival in Lung Cancer Using Different Volumes -Of-Interest," Applied Sciences, vol. 10, no. 18, p. 6425, 2020

    2020

  70. [78]

    A seven -gene prognostic signature predicts overall survival of patients with lung adenocarcinoma (LUAD),

    A. A. Dherasi, T. Q. Huang and et al, "A seven -gene prognostic signature predicts overall survival of patients with lung adenocarcinoma (LUAD)," Cancer Cell Int, vol. 21, no. 1, p. 294, 2021

    2021

  71. [79]

    A Novel Deep Learning Method to Predict Lung Cancer Long -Term Survival With Biological Knowledge Incorporated Gene Expression Images and Clinical Data,

    S. Wang, H. Zhang and et al, "A Novel Deep Learning Method to Predict Lung Cancer Long -Term Survival With Biological Knowledge Incorporated Gene Expression Images and Clinical Data," Front Genet, vol. 13, pp. 800 -853, 2022

    2022

  72. [80]

    A survey on semi -supervised learning,

    J. E. van Engelen and H. Hoos, "A survey on semi -supervised learning," Machine Learning, vol. 109, no. 2, pp. 373 - 440, 2019

    2019

  73. [81]

    Semi-supervised classification for natural language processing,

    R. Shams, "Semi-supervised classification for natural language processing," arXiv preprint arXiv:1409.7612, 25 Sep 2014

    2014 arXiv

  74. [82]

    Disease prediction by machine learning over big data from healthcare communities,

    M. Chen, Y. Hao and et al, "Disease prediction by machine learning over big data from healthcare communities," IEEE Access, vol. 5, pp. 8869-8879, 2017

    2017

  75. [83]

    Deep learning applications for predicting pharmacological properties of drugs and drug repurpo sing using transcriptomic data,

    A. Aliper, S. Plis and et al, "Deep learning applications for predicting pharmacological properties of drugs and drug repurpo sing using transcriptomic data," Molecular pharmaceutics, vol. 13, no. 7, p. 2524 –2530, 2016

    2016

  76. [84]

    Development of a Survival Prognostic Model for Non -small Cell Lung Cancer,

    H. Y. Zhang, Y. Lu and et al, "Development of a Survival Prognostic Model for Non -small Cell Lung Cancer," Front Oncol, vol. 10, p. 362, 2020

    2020

  77. [85]

    Identification of lung cancer gene markers through kernel maximum mean discrepancy and information entropy,

    Z. Zhao, H. Peng and et al, "Identification of lung cancer gene markers through kernel maximum mean discrepancy and information entropy," BMC Med Genomics, vol. 12, no. Suppl 8, p. 183, 2019

    2019

  78. [86]

    The major effects of health-related quality of life on 5-year survival prediction among lung cancer survivors: applications of machine learning,

    J. A. Sim, Y. A. Kim and et al, "The major effects of health-related quality of life on 5-year survival prediction among lung cancer survivors: applications of machine learning," Sci Rep, vol. 10, no. 1, p. 10693, 2020

    2020

  79. [87]

    Optimized machine learning methods for prediction of cognitive outcome in Parkinson's disease,

    M. R. Salmanpour, M. Shamsaei and et al, "Optimized machine learning methods for prediction of cognitive outcome in Parkinson's disease," Computers in Biology and Medicine, vol. 111, p. 103347, 2019

    2019

  80. [88]

    Machine learning methods for optimal prediction of motor outcome in Parkinson’s dis ease,

    M. R. Salmanpour, M. Shamsaei and et al, "Machine learning methods for optimal prediction of motor outcome in Parkinson’s dis ease," Physica Medica, vol. 69, pp. 233 -240, 2020

    2020

  81. [89]

    Lung cancer prediction using machine learning on data from a symptom e -questionnaire for never smokers, formers smokers and current smokers,

    E. Nemlander, A. Rosenblad and et al, "Lung cancer prediction using machine learning on data from a symptom e -questionnaire for never smokers, formers smokers and current smokers," PLoS ONE, vol. 17, no. 10, p. e0276703, 2022

    2022

  82. [90]

    Deep -Learning Approach to Predict Survival Outcomes Using Wearable Actigraphy Device Among End - Stage Cancer Patients,

    T. Y. Yang, P. Y. Kuo and et al, "Deep -Learning Approach to Predict Survival Outcomes Using Wearable Actigraphy Device Among End - Stage Cancer Patients," Front Public Health, vol. 9, p. 730150, 2021

    2021

  83. [91]

    Lung Cancer Survival Prediction using Ensemble Data Mining on Seer Data,

    S. Misra, R. Narayanan and et al, "Lung Cancer Survival Prediction using Ensemble Data Mining on Seer Data," Scientific Programming, vol. 20, p. 14, 2012

    2012

  84. [92]

    Semi -Supervised Multi -Task Learning for Lung Cancer Diagnosis,

    N. Khosravan and U. Bagci, "Semi -Supervised Multi -Task Learning for Lung Cancer Diagnosis," Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc, vol. 2018, pp. 710 -713, 2018

    2018

  85. [93]

    Radiomics: Extracting more information from medical images using advanced feature analysis,

    P. Lambin, E. Rios -Velazquez and et al, "Radiomics: Extracting more information from medical images using advanced feature analysis," European Journal of Cancer, vol. 48, no. 4, pp. 441 -446, 2012

    2012

  86. [94]

    A Deep Learning -Based Radiomics Model for Prediction of Survival in Glioblastoma Multiforme,

    J. Lao, Y. Chen and et al, "A Deep Learning -Based Radiomics Model for Prediction of Survival in Glioblastoma Multiforme," Sci Rep, vol. 7, no. 1, p. 10353, Sep 4 2017

    2017

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.