ArticleBMC cancer2025
A radiogenomics study on
Article in BMC cancer, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Radiogenomic landscape of the hallmarks of cancer.Biomarker research · 2026Review
- Radiogenomics and machine learning in hepatocellular carcinoma: from foundations to clinical translation.World journal of surgical oncology · 2026Review
- Using Imaris to rigorously track PET-defined sites of lung inflammation inAmerican journal of diagnostic imaging · 2026Article
- Molecular Imaging in Photon Radiotherapy.Recent results in cancer research. Fortschritte der Krebsforschung. Progres dans les recherches sur le cancer · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo create an automated PET/CT segmentation method and radiomics model to forecast Mismatch repair (MMR) and TP53 gene expression in endometrial cancer patients, and to examine the effect of gene expression variability on image texture features. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe generated two datasets in this retrospective and exploratory study. The first, with 123 histopathologically confirmed patient cases, was used to develop an endometrial cancer segmentation model. The second dataset, including 249 patients for MMR and 179 for TP53 mutation prediction, was derived from PET/CT exams and immunohistochemical analysis. A PET-based Attention-U Net network was used for segmentation, followed by region-growing with co-registered PET and CT images. Feature models were constructed using PET, CT, and combined data, with model selection based on performance comparison.
resultsOur segmentation model achieved 99.99% training accuracy and a dice coefficient of 97.35%, with validation accuracy at 99.93% and a dice coefficient of 84.81%. The combined PET + CT model demonstrated superior predictive power for both genes, with AUCs of 0.8146 and 0.8102 for MMR, and 0.8833 and 0.8150 for TP53 in training and test sets, respectively. MMR-related protein heterogeneity and TP53 expression differences were predominantly seen in PET images.
conclusionAn efficient deep learning algorithm for endometrial cancer segmentation has been established, highlighting the enhanced predictive power of integrated PET and CT radiomics for MMR and TP53 expression. The study underscores the distinct influences of MMR and TP53 gene expression on tumor characteristics.
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.