ArticleIn vivo (Athens, Greece)
Interpretable Deep Learning Radiomics for Differentiating Pleomorphic Adenoma and Warthin Tumor.
Article in In vivo (Athens, Greece). 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
aimPreoperative differentiation between pleomorphic adenoma (PA) and Warthin tumor (WT) is essential for optimizing surgical strategies. This study aimed to develop and validate an interpretable machine learning framework integrating clinical data, traditional radiomics, and deep learning features to enhance diagnostic precision PATIENTS AND
methodsWe retrospectively analyzed 171 patients (84 PA and 87 WT). A total of 1,561 radiomic and 2,048 deep learning features were extracted from preoperative CT scans. Following LASSO-based feature selection, models were constructed and evaluated on a 70:30 training-validation split (n=119 and n=52, respectively). Diagnostic performance was quantified using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Model interpretability was achieved through SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) analysis.
resultsThe combined model significantly outperformed individual clinical or radiomic models. The XGBoost classifier exhibited the highest efficacy, yielding a validation AUC of 0.961 (95%CI=0.916-1.000). In the training cohort, the clinical model and the radiomics-deep learning model achieved AUCs of 0.902 (95%CI=0.843-0.962) and 0.95 (95%CI=0.91-0.99), respectively. SHAP analysis indicated that the deep-learning score, patient age, and gender were the most influential predictors.
conclusionAn interpretable model combining deep learning radiomics and clinical attributes provides robust accuracy in distinguishing PA from WT. The integration of SHAP values offers clinicians transparent insights, supporting personalized treatment planning.
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.