SearcharxivSearch

arXiv subjects

Eric L. Grogan

Publications and source records attributed to Eric L. Grogan.

2 recordsLinked to original sources

An Artifact-based Agent Framework for Adaptive and Reproducible Medical Image Processing

Medical imaging research is increasingly shifting from controlled benchmark evaluation toward real-world clinical deployment. In such settings, applying analytical methods extends beyond model design to require dataset-aware workflow configuration and provenance tracking. Two requirements therefore become central: \textbf{adaptability}, the ability to configure workflows according to dataset-specific conditions and evolving analytical goals; and \textbf{reproducibility}, the guarantee that all transformations and decisions are explicitly recorded and re-executable. Here, we present an artifact-based agent framework that introduces a semantic layer to augment medical image processing. The framework formalizes intermediate and final outputs through an artifact contract, enabling structured interrogation of workflow state and goal-conditioned assembly of configurations from a modular rule library. Execution is delegated to a workflow executor to preserve deterministic computational graph construction and provenance tracking, while the agent operates locally to comply with most privacy constraints. We evaluate the framework on real-world clinical CT and MRI cohorts, demonstrating adaptive configuration synthesis, deterministic reproducibility across repeated executions, and artifact-grounded semantic querying. These results show that adaptive workflow configuration can be achieved without compromising reproducibility in heterogeneous clinical environments.

cs.AI

No winners: Performance of lung cancer prediction models depends on screening-detected, incidental, and biopsied pulmonary nodule use cases

Statistical models for predicting lung cancer have the potential to facilitate earlier diagnosis of malignancy and avoid invasive workup of benign disease. Many models have been published, but comparative studies of their utility in different clinical settings in which patients would arguably most benefit are scarce. This study retrospectively evaluated promising predictive models for lung cancer prediction in three clinical settings: lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography, incidentally detected pulmonary nodules, and nodules deemed suspicious enough to warrant a biopsy. We leveraged 9 cohorts (n=898, 896, 882, 219, 364, 117, 131, 115, 373) from multiple institutions to assess the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of validated models including logistic regressions on clinical variables and radiologist nodule characterizations, artificial intelligence on chest CTs, longitudinal imaging AI, and multi-modal approaches. We implemented each model from their published literature, re-training the models if necessary, and curated each cohort from primary data sources. We observed that model performance varied greatly across clinical use cases. No single predictive model emerged as a clear winner across all cohorts, but certain models excelled in specific clinical contexts. Single timepoint chest CT AI performed well in lung screening, but struggled to generalize to other clinical settings. Longitudinal imaging and multimodal models demonstrated comparatively promising performance on incidentally-detected nodules. However, when applied to nodules that underwent biopsy, all models underperformed. These results underscore the strengths and limitations of 8 validated predictive models and highlight promising directions towards personalized, noninvasive lung cancer diagnosis.

q-bio.QM