Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36798732›Full record

ArticleAdvances in radiation oncology

Comparison of Machine-Learning and Deep-Learning Methods for the Prediction of Osteoradionecrosis Resulting From Head and Neck Cancer Radiation Therapy.

Brandon Reber, Lisanne Van Dijk, Brian Anderson, Abdallah Sherif Radwan Mohamed, Clifton Fuller, Stephen Lai, Kristy Brock

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Advances in radiation oncology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. The impact of sex on setup accuracy in radiotherapy for rectal cancer: a real-World observational study.Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al] · 2026
    Observational
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Vision Transformer-Based Multilabel Survival Prediction for Oropharynx Cancer After Radiation Therapy.International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics · 2024
    Article
  9. Review
  10. In Regard to Reber et al.Advances in radiation oncology
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Brandon ReberDepartment of Imaging Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Lisanne Van DijkDepartment of Imaging Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Brian AndersonDepartment of Imaging Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Abdallah Sherif Radwan MohamedDepartment of Imaging Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Clifton FullerDepartment of Imaging Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Stephen LaiDepartment of Imaging Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Kristy BrockDepartment of Imaging Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.

Funding

Tumor Evolution and Metastasis ProgramP30CA016672 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF TX MD ANDERSON CAN CTR · PI Scott Kopetz · 1985 to 2026
$290.8M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA016672
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: Deep-learning (DL) techniques have been successful in disease-prediction tasks and could improve the prediction of mandible osteoradionecrosis (ORN) resulting from head and neck cancer (HNC) radiation therapy. In this study, we retrospectively compared the performance of DL algorithms and traditional machine-learning (ML) techniques to predict mandible ORN binary outcome in an extensive cohort of patients with HNC. Methods and Materials: Patients who received HNC radiation therapy at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center from 2005 to 2015 were identified for the ML (n = 1259) and DL (n = 1236) studies. The subjects were followed for ORN development for at least 12 months, with 173 developing ORN and 1086 having no evidence of ORN. The ML models used dose-volume histogram parameters to predict ORN development. These models included logistic regression, random forest, support vector machine, and a random classifier reference. The DL models were based on ResNet, DenseNet, and autoencoder-based architectures. The DL models used each participant's dose cropped to the mandible. The effect of increasing the amount of available training data on the DL models' prediction performance was evaluated by training the DL models using increasing ratios of the original training data. Results: The F1 score for the logistic regression model, the best-performing ML model, was 0.3. The best-performing ResNet, DenseNet, and autoencoder-based models had F1 scores of 0.07, 0.14, and 0.23, respectively, whereas the random classifier's F1 score was 0.17. No performance increase was apparent when we increased the amount of training data available for DL model training. Conclusions: The ML models had superior performance to their DL counterparts. The lack of improvement in DL performance with increased training data suggests that either more data are needed for appropriate DL model construction or that the image features used in DL models are not suitable for this task.

Identifiers

PMID36798732
PMCPMC9926206

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.