ArticleJournal of medical signals and sensors2024
Predicting the Response of Patients Treated with
Article in Journal of medical signals and sensors, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Combination therapy strategies in engineeredCell communication and signaling : CCS · 2026Review
- Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning in Pediatric Endocrine Tumors: Opportunities, Pitfalls, and a Roadmap for Trustworthy Clinical Translation.Biomedicines · 2026Review
- Future of radiotheranostics.BMJ oncology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: In this study, we want to evaluate the response to Lutetium-177 ( Methods: The total volume of tumor areas was segmented into 61 SPECT and 41 SPECT-CT images from 22 patients with NETs. A total of 871 radiomics and clinical features were extracted from the SPECT and SPECT-CT images. Subsequently, a feature reduction method called maximum relevance minimum redundancy (mRMR) was used to select the best combination of features. These selected features were modeled using a decision tree (DT), random forest (RF), K-nearest neighbor (KNN), and support vector machine (SVM) classifiers to predict the treatment response in patients. For the SPECT and SPECT-CT images, ten and eight features, respectively, were selected using the mRMR algorithm. Results: The results revealed that the RF classifier with feature selection algorithms through mRMR had the highest classification accuracies of 64% and 83% for the SPECT and SPECT-CT images, respectively. The accuracy of the classifications of DT, KNN, and SVM for SPECT-CT images is 79%, 74%, and 67%, respectively. The poor accuracy obtained from different classifications in SPECT images (≈64%) showed that these images are not suitable for predicting treatment response. Conclusions: Modeling the selected features of SPECT-CT images based on their anatomy and the presence of extensive gray levels makes it possible to predict responses to the treatment of
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.