ArticleQuantitative imaging in medicine and surgery2026
Enhancing cancer prognostics with group penalty models: a comparative study on radiomics feature selection in lung adenocarcinomas and meningiomas.
Article in Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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: Radiomics, the extraction of features from medical images, has shown promise in cancer prognostics. However, its high-dimensional nature poses challenges for feature selection and model stability. Traditional least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (Lasso) tends to select only one feature from correlated groups, leading to unstable feature selection. This study aimed to compare group penalty models with Lasso in selecting radiomic features for cancer prognosis. Methods: We analyzed 590 lung adenocarcinoma lesions for predicting early-stage spread through air spaces (STAS) and 194 meningioma cases for tumor grade prediction. Various group penalty models, including group Lasso, group minimax concave penalty (MCP), group smoothly clipped absolute deviation (SCAD), and adaptive penalization regression with external covariates using variational Bayes (graper), were employed alongside Lasso. Features were organized into natural groups based on segmentation regions and mathematical properties. Model performance was assessed using 10-fold cross-validation, evaluating area under the curve (AUC) and feature selection stability through Jaccard Index. The best-performing models were validated on independent test sets. Results: For lung adenocarcinomas, group SCAD achieved the highest cross-validation AUC of 0.804 [standard deviation (SD) =0.056] with Jaccard Index of 0.613, compared to Lasso's AUC of 0.776 (SD =0.059) and Jaccard Index of 0.503. In the test set, both models showed comparable performance (group SCAD: AUC =0.874; Lasso: AUC =0.877; P=0.896). For meningiomas, group Lasso achieved the highest cross-validation AUC of 0.816 (SD =0.143) with Jaccard Index of 0.7, versus Lasso's AUC of 0.743 (SD =0.223) and Jaccard Index of 0.41. Test set validation showed no significant difference (group Lasso: AUC =0.877; Lasso: AUC =0.835; P=0.391). Conclusions: Group penalty models demonstrated superior feature selection stability while maintaining comparable predictive performance to Lasso. By selecting biologically meaningful feature groups rather than individual features, these models enhance interpretability and align better with clinical reasoning, offering a robust framework for radiomics-based cancer prognostics.
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.