ArticleArXiv2026
Comparing the Performance of Foundation Model Derived Embeddings with Traditional Approaches for Distant Metastasis Prediction in Head and Neck Cancer.
Article in ArXiv, 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Early prediction of distant metastasis (DM) risk in head and neck cancer (HNC) can enable timely interventions that may improve treatment outcomes. While machine learning approaches using medical imaging have been widely explored for this task, many current methods rely on prior knowledge of the region of interest such as tumor segmentations, which require expert knowledge, is time-consuming and introduces user-dependent variability. Medical image-based foundation models have recently been developed for specific imaging modalities to streamline down-stream prediction tasks by extracting modality-relevant features. Purpose: In this study, we evaluate the effectiveness of using a foundation model as the feature extractor from minimally processed image volumes to predict DM risk in HNC patients and compare its performance with traditional approaches that require prior knowledge on the regions of interest. Methods: Preoperative CT images of 2327 patients from the RADCURE dataset were used. Three features-sets were created including radiomics, deep-learning based features, and CT Foundation derived features. The feature-sets were used individually in a multi-layer perceptron (MLP) to predict DM risk. The final models for each feature-set were chosen using 5-fold cross validation and their performance was evaluated using a hold-out testing set. Results: The model using CT Foundation embeddings outperformed the radiomics and deep learning-based models, achieving a Receiver Operating Characteristic Area Under the Curve (AUC) of 0.791, compared to AUC values of 0.772 and 0.753 for the radiomics and deep learning-based models, respectively. The CT Foundation based model had similar performance to a model that combined the use of radiomics and deep learning-based features that achieved an AUC of 0.794. Conclusions: Features based on foundation models offer a promising alternative to traditional radiomics while reducing the need for domain expertise and extensively annotated datasets. Their minimal preprocessing requirements also make them a more accessible and scalable option.
Identifiers
42619875PMC13484420What 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.