Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38026084›Full record

ArticlePhysics and imaging in radiation oncology2023

Comparison of computed tomography image features extracted by radiomics, self-supervised learning and end-to-end deep learning for outcome prediction of oropharyngeal cancer.

Baoqiang Ma, Jiapan Guo, Hung Chu, Lisanne V van Dijk, Peter M A van Ooijen, Johannes A Langendijk, Stefan Both, Nanna M Sijtsema

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Physics and imaging in radiation oncology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Principles of artificial intelligence in radiooncology.Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al] · 2025
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. 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

8 authors.

Baoqiang MaDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands.
Jiapan GuoDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands.
Hung ChuDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands.
Lisanne V van DijkDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands.
Peter M A van OoijenDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands.
Johannes A LangendijkDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands.
Stefan BothDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands.
Nanna M SijtsemaDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background and purpose: To compare the prediction performance of image features of computed tomography (CT) images extracted by radiomics, self-supervised learning and end-to-end deep learning for local control (LC), regional control (RC), locoregional control (LRC), distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS), tumor-specific survival (TSS), overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) of oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (OPSCC) patients after (chemo)radiotherapy. Methods and materials: The OPC-Radiomics dataset was used for model development and independent internal testing and the UMCG-OPC set for external testing. Image features were extracted from the Gross Tumor Volume contours of the primary tumor (GTVt) regions in CT scans when using radiomics or a self-supervised learning-based method (autoencoder). Clinical and combined (radiomics, autoencoder or end-to-end) models were built using multivariable Cox proportional-hazard analysis with clinical features only and both clinical and image features for LC, RC, LRC, DMFS, TSS, OS and DFS prediction, respectively. Results: In the internal test set, combined autoencoder models performed better than clinical models and combined radiomics models for LC, RC, LRC, DMFS, TSS and DFS prediction (largest improvements in C-index: 0.91 vs. 0.76 in RC and 0.74 vs. 0.60 in DMFS). In the external test set, combined radiomics models performed better than clinical and combined autoencoder models for all endpoints (largest improvements in LC, 0.82 vs. 0.71). Furthermore, combined models performed better in risk stratification than clinical models and showed good calibration for most endpoints. Conclusions: Image features extracted using self-supervised learning showed best internal prediction performance while radiomics features have better external generalizability.

Indexed as

Deep learningOropharynx carcinomaPrognostic modelingRadiomicsSelf-supervised learning

Identifiers

PMID38026084
PMCPMC10663809

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.