ArticleRadiological physics and technology2026
Uncertainty-aware deep learning for classifying colonic fdg-pet uptake using radiomic features.
Article in Radiological physics and technology, 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
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study developed deep learning models to differentiate tumorous from non-tumorous incidental colorectal FDG-PET uptake using radiomic features categories and to evaluate both classification performance and predictive uncertainty. PET data from 80 patients (45 tumorous, 35 non-tumorous) were analyzed. Radiomic features were grouped into morphology, intensity, texture, and all features, and feature selection was performed using LassoCV within each training split. Model development and evaluation used repeated stratified hold-out validation (10 splits; train/test = 80/20) with internal cross-validation and early stopping. Predictive uncertainty was estimated using Monte Carlo dropout with 100 stochastic inferences per test case and assessed using risk–coverage curves and AURC. The All model achieved the highest accuracy (84.8 ± 5.7%) and AUC (0.83 ± 0.08), outperforming single-category models (accuracy < 70%; AUC 0.70–0.74). Uncertainty increased as predicted probabilities approached 0.5, and selective prediction based on uncertainty reduced misclassification risk for the Intensity, Texture, and All models, but not for the Morphology model. These results suggest that integrating multiple radiomic feature categories improves both predictive performance and stability, and that uncertainty-guided decision-making may support safer clinical triage by withholding high-uncertainty cases.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41961248What 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.