Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This study benchmarks various feature extractors, classification heads, and segmentation strategies for lung cancer phenotyping using CT scans, comparing traditional radiomics with foundation models. The evaluation, conducted across multiple tasks and cohorts, reveals that the effectiveness of each design choice is highly task-dependent, with segmentation being crucial for tumor volume and stage classification, while classifier selection is more impactful for survival and histology predictions. The recommended pipeline, utilizing Curia with tumor segmentation and a CatBoost head, achieves optimal performance across key clinical tasks, highlighting the importance of tailored approaches in medical AI applications.
Task-specific design choices can significantly outperform generic models in lung cancer classification, revealing the nuanced interplay between feature extraction and classification in medical AI.
Radiomics is the established approach for CT-based lung cancer phenotyping, yet comparisons with foundation models rarely isolate contributions of feature extractor, classification head, and segmentation choice, or test cross-cohort robustness. We benchmark five feature extractors (Curia, Curia-2, DINOv3, Radiomics2D, Radiomics3D), seven classification heads (TabPFN, TabICL, XGBoost, CatBoost, Random Forest, logistic regression, Ridge), and three segmentation regimes on five tasks: tumor volume and stage classification, 2-year survival prediction, histology classification, and age prediction. Models are trained on LUNG1 (n=338) and evaluated on an internal test set (n=84) and the external LUNG2 cohort (n=211), with worst-case cross-cohort performance as the primary metric. The dominant design factor is task-dependent: segmentation drives volume and stage classification, while classifier choice drives survival, histology, and age prediction. Radiomics is competitive for tumor volume, tumor stage and survival (partly due to label-derivation effects for the former); Curia variants reach comparable peak scores for survival; DINOv3 falls slightly short across tasks. Patch and slice aggregation have negligible impact. We recommend Curia with tumor segmentation and a CatBoost head as a safe default, achieving the best mean rank across the three primary clinical tasks, though task-specific selection consistently outperforms any cross-task default. When tumor delineations are unavailable, Curia-2 with lung segmentation and logistic regression offers a competitive alternative. All pipelines use a two-stage design suited to small cohort sizes where end-to-end fine-tuning would risk overfitting.
