請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/101451完整後設資料紀錄
| DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
|---|---|---|
| dc.contributor.advisor | 陳中明 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.advisor | Chung-Ming Chen | en |
| dc.contributor.author | 李沛諺 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.author | Pei-Yan Li | en |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2026-02-03T16:23:24Z | - |
| dc.date.available | 2026-02-04 | - |
| dc.date.copyright | 2026-02-03 | - |
| dc.date.issued | 2026 | - |
| dc.date.submitted | 2026-01-23 | - |
| dc.identifier.citation | 1. Byrd JB, Turcu AF, Auchus RJ. Primary aldosteronism. Circulation. 2018;138(8):823-835. doi:10.1161/circulationaha.118.033597
2. Funder JW, Carey RM. Primary aldosteronism: Where are we now? Where to from here? Hypertension. 2022;79(4):726-735. doi:10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.121.18761 3. Rossi GP, Bernini G, Caliumi C, et al. A prospective study of the prevalence of primary aldosteronism in 1,125 hypertensive patients. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006;48(11):2293-2300. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2006.07.059 4. Funder JW, Carey RM, Mantero F, et al. The management of primary aldosteronism: Case detection, diagnosis, and treatment: An Endocrine Society clinical practice guideline. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2016;101(5):1889-1916. doi:10.1210/jc.2015- 4061 5. Williams TA, Lenders JWM, Mulatero P, et al. Outcomes after adrenalectomy for unilateral primary aldosteronism: an international consensus on outcome measures and analysis of remission rates in an international cohort. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2017;5(9):689-699. doi:10.1016/S2213-8587(17)30135-3 6. Vorselaars WMCM, Nell S, Postma EL, et al. Clinical outcomes after unilateral adrenalectomy for primary aldosteronism. JAMA Surg. 2019;154(4):e185842. doi:10.1001/jamasurg.2018.5842 7. Young WF Jr. Diagnosis and treatment of primary aldosteronism: practical clinical perspectives. J Intern Med. 2019;285(2):126-148. doi:10.1111/joim.12831 8. Adler GK, Stowasser M, Correa RR, et al. Primary aldosteronism: An endocrine society clinical practice guideline. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2025;110(9):2453-2495. doi:10.1210/clinem/dgaf284 9. Wang W, Hu W, Zhang X, Wang B, Bin C, Huang H. Predictors of successful outcome after adrenalectomy for primary aldosteronism. Int Surg. 2012;97(2):104- 111. doi:10.9738/cc140.1 10. Burrello J, Burrello A, Stowasser M, et al. The Primary Aldosteronism Surgical Outcome score for the prediction of clinical outcomes after adrenalectomy for unilateral primary aldosteronism. Ann Surg. 2020;272(6):1125-1132. doi:10.1097/SLA.0000000000003200 11. Rossi GP, Rossi FB, Guarnieri C, Rossitto G, Seccia TM. Clinical management of primary aldosteronism: An update. Hypertension. 2024;81(9):1845-1856. doi:10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.124.22642 12. Samnani S, Cenzer I, Kline GA, et al. Time to benefit of surgery vs targeted medical therapy for patients with primary aldosteronism: A meta-analysis. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2024;109(3):e1280-e1289. doi:10.1210/clinem/dgad654 13. Saadi A, Bedoui MA, Zaghbib S, et al. Predictors of successful outcome after adrenalectomy for unilateral primary aldosteronism. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2023;14:1205988. doi:10.3389/fendo.2023.1205988 14. Manosroi W, Atthakomol P, Phinyo P, Inthaphan P. Predictive factors of clinical success after adrenalectomy in primary aldosteronism: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2022;13:925591. doi:10.3389/fendo.2022.925591 15. Wang W, Hu W, Zhang X, Wang B, Bin C, Huang H. Predictors of successful outcome after adrenalectomy for primary aldosteronism. Int Surg. 2012;97(2):104- 111. doi:10.9738/CC140.1 16. Shah WS, Elkhwesky Z, Jasim KM, Elkhwesky EFY, Elkhwesky FFY. Artificial intelligence in healthcare services: past, present and future research directions. Rev Manag Sci. 2024;18(3):941-963. doi:10.1007/s11846-023-00699-w 17. Dixon D, Sattar H, Moros N, et al. Unveiling the influence of AI predictive analytics on patient outcomes: A comprehensive narrative review. Cureus. 2024;16(5):e59954. doi:10.7759/cureus.59954 18. Zhou J, Cui G, Hu S, et al. Graph neural networks: A review of methods and applications. AI Open. 2020;1:57-81. doi:10.1016/j.aiopen.2021.01.001 19. Muzio G, O’Bray L, Borgwardt K. Biological network analysis with deep learning. Brief Bioinform. 2021;22(2):1515-1530. doi:10.1093/bib/bbaa257 20. Zhong Z, Li CT, Pang J. Hierarchical message-passing graph neural networks. Data Min Knowl Discov. 2023;37(1):381-408. doi:10.1007/s10618-022-00890-9 21. Zhao T, Dong NT, Hanjalic A, Khosla M. Multi-label node classification on graph-structured data. arXiv [csLG]. Published online April 20, 2023. http://arxiv.org/abs/2304.10398 22. Li MM, Huang K, Zitnik M. Graph representation learning in biomedicine and healthcare. Nat Biomed Eng. 2022;6(12):1353-1369. doi:10.1038/s41551-022- 00942-x 23. Gu A, Dao T. Mamba: Linear-time sequence modeling with selective state spaces. arXiv [csLG]. Published online December 1, 2023. http://arxiv.org/abs/2312.00752 24. Xing Z, Ye T, Yang Y, et al. SegMamba-V2: Long-range sequential modeling Mamba for general 3D medical image segmentation. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2025;PP:1- 1. doi:10.1109/TMI.2025.3589797 25. Power D, Ullah I. Automated assessment of simulated laparoscopic surgical performance using 3DCNN. Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2024;2024:1- 4. doi:10.1109/EMBC53108.2024.10782160 26. Çiçek Ö, Abdulkadir A, Lienkamp SS, Brox T, Ronneberger O. 3D U-net: Learning dense volumetric segmentation from sparse annotation. In: Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention – MICCAI 2016. Lecture notes in computer science. Springer International Publishing; 2016:424-432. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-46723-8_49 27. Pan D, Luo G, Zeng A, et al. Adaptive 3DCNN-based interpretable ensemble model for early diagnosis of Alzheimer’s Disease. IEEE Trans Comput Soc Syst. 2024;11(1):247-266. doi:10.1109/tcss.2022.3223999 28. Jian M, Jin H, Zhang L, Wei B, Yu H. DBPNDNet: dual-branch networks using 3DCNN toward pulmonary nodule detection. Med Biol Eng Comput. 2024;62(2):563-573. doi:10.1007/s11517-023-02957-1 29. Zarnegar R, Young WF Jr, Lee J, et al. The aldosteronoma resolution score: predicting complete resolution of hypertension after adrenalectomy for aldosteronoma. Ann Surg. 2008;247(3):511-518. doi:10.1097/SLA.0b013e318165c075 30. Romero-Velez G, Laird AM, Barajas ME, et al. Outcomes of adrenalectomy and the aldosteronoma resolution score in the Black and Hispanic population. World J Surg. 2021;45(5):1475-1482. doi:10.1007/s00268-021-05967-y 31. Marzano L. Predicting the resolution of hypertension following adrenalectomy in primary aldosteronism: Controversies and unresolved issues a narrative review. Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2024;409(1):295. doi:10.1007/s00423-024-03486-7 32. Kaneko H, Umakoshi H, Ogata M, et al. Machine learning-based models for predicting clinical outcomes after surgery in unilateral primary aldosteronism. Sci Rep. 2022;12(1):5781. doi:10.1038/s41598-022-09706-8 33. Chen PT, Chang D, Liu KL, et al. Radiomics utilization to differentiate nonfunctional adenoma in essential hypertension and functional adenoma in primary aldosteronism. Sci Rep. 2022;12(1):8892. doi:10.1038/s41598-022-12835-9 34. Chen PT, Li PY, Liu KL, et al. Machine learning model with computed tomography radiomics and clinicobiochemical characteristics predict the subtypes of patients with primary aldosteronism. Acad Radiol. 2024;31(5):1818-1827. doi:10.1016/j.acra.2023.10.015 35. Mansour N, Mittermeier A, Walter R, et al. Integration of clinical parameters and CT-based radiomics improves machine learning assisted subtyping of primary hyperaldosteronism. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2023;14:1244342. doi:10.3389/fendo.2023.1244342 36. Acosta JN, Falcone GJ, Rajpurkar P, Topol EJ. Multimodal biomedical AI. Nat Med. 2022;28(9):1773-1784. doi:10.1038/s41591-022-01981-2 37. van Assen M, Tariq A, Razavi AC, Yang C, Banerjee I, De Cecco CN. Fusion modeling: Combining clinical and imaging data to advance cardiac care. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2023;16(12):e014533. doi:10.1161/CIRCIMAGING.122.014533 38. Wang W, Yang G, Liu Y, et al. Multimodal deep learning model for prognostic prediction in cervical cancer receiving definitive radiotherapy: a multi-center study. NPJ Digit Med. 2025;8(1):503. doi:10.1038/s41746-025-01903-9 39. Schouten D, Nicoletti G, Dille B, et al. Navigating the landscape of multimodal AI in medicine: A scoping review on technical challenges and clinical applications. Med Image Anal. 2025;105(103621):103621. doi:10.1016/j.media.2025.103621 40. Li PY, Huang YW, Wu VC, Chueh JS, Tseng CS, Chen CM. GAPPA: Enhancing prognosis prediction in primary aldosteronism post-adrenalectomy using graph- based modeling. Artif Intell Med. 2025;159(103028):103028. doi:10.1016/j.artmed.2024.103028 41. Yang Y, Williams TA, Song Y, et al. Nomogram-based preoperative score for predicting clinical outcome in unilateral primary aldosteronism. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2020;105(12):e4382-e4392. doi:10.1210/clinem/dgaa634 42. Hollmann N, Müller S, Purucker L, et al. Accurate predictions on small data with a tabular foundation model. Nature. 2025;637(8045):319-326. doi:10.1038/s41586- 024-08328-6 43. Karabacak M, Ozkara BB, Faizy TD, et al. Data-driven prognostication in distal medium vessel occlusions using explainable machine learning. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2025;46(4):725-732. doi:10.3174/ajnr.A8547 44. Yu H, Saffaran S, Maia IS, Clini E, Bates DG, NIVPredict study group. Early prediction of non-invasive ventilation outcome using the TabPFN machine learning model: a multi-centre validation study. Intensive Care Med. 2025;51(8):1542-1544. doi:10.1007/s00134-025-08025-6 45. Barbiero P, Viñas Torné R, Lió P. Graph representation forecasting of patient’s medical conditions: Toward a digital twin. Front Genet. 2021;12:652907. doi:10.3389/fgene.2021.652907 46. Diaz Ochoa JG, Mustafa FE. Graph neural network modelling as a potentially effective method for predicting and analyzing procedures based on patients’ diagnoses. Artif Intell Med. 2022;131(102359):102359. doi:10.1016/j.artmed.2022.102359 47. Wu Z. A comprehensive survey on graph neural networks. IEEE Trans Neural Netw Learn Syst. 2021;32:4-24. 48. Jin J, Wang Y, Zhang W, et al. Refined edge usage of graph Neural Networks for edge prediction. arXiv [csLG]. Published online December 25, 2022. http://arxiv.org/abs/2212.12970 49. You J, Ma X, Ding DY, Kochenderfer M, Leskovec J. Handling missing data with graph representation learning. arXiv [csLG]. Published online October 30, 2020. http://arxiv.org/abs/2010.16418 50. Pei-Yan Li, Tai-Lien Wu, Yu-Wen Huang, Vin-Cent Wu, Jeff Chueh, Chi-Shin. An Ensemble Approach for Predicting Post-adrenalectomy Clinical Outcomes in Patients with Unilateral Primary Aldosteronism. In: The 46th IEEE EMBC. IEEE; 2023. 51. Shao S, Xu H, Xing Z, et al. The prognostic value of CXCR4 PET/CT imaging in unilateral primary aldosteronism patients after adrenalectomy. EJNMMI Res. 2025;15(1):41. doi:10.1186/s13550-025-01242-6 52. Chen J, Wee L, Dekker A, Bermejo I. Using 3D deep features from CT scans for cancer prognosis based on a video classification model: A multi-dataset feasibility study. Med Phys. 2023;50(7):4220-4233. doi:10.1002/mp.16430 53. Mahootiha M, Qadir HA, Aghayan D, Fretland ÅA, von Gohren Edwin B, Balasingham I. Deep learning-assisted survival prognosis in renal cancer: A CT scan-based personalized approach. Heliyon. 2024;10(2):e24374. doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e24374 54. Singh SP, Wang L, Gupta S, Goli H, Padmanabhan P, Gulyás B. 3D deep learning on medical images: A review. Sensors (Basel). 2020;20(18):5097. doi:10.3390/s20185097 55. Sharif H, Rehman F, Rida A. Deep learning: Convolutional neural networks for medical image analysis - A quick review. In: 2022 2nd International Conference on Digital Futures and Transformative Technologies (ICoDT2). IEEE; 2022. doi:10.1109/icodt255437.2022.9787469 56. Ilesanmi AE, Ilesanmi TO, Ajayi BO. Reviewing 3D convolutional neural network approaches for medical image segmentation. Heliyon. 2024;10(6):e27398. doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e27398 57. Ahmad IS, Dai J, Xie Y, Liang X. Deep learning models for CT image classification: a comprehensive literature review. Quant Imaging Med Surg. 2025;15(1):962-1011. doi:10.21037/qims-24-1400 58. Tang F, Nian B, Li Y, et al. MambaMIM: Pre-training Mamba with state space token interpolation and its application to medical image segmentation. Med Image Anal. 2025;103(103606):103606. doi:10.1016/j.media.2025.103606 59. Xu J, Lan Y, Zhang Y, Zhang C, Stirenko S, Li H. CDA-mamba: cross-directional attention mamba for enhanced 3D medical image segmentation. Sci Rep. 2025;15(1):21357. doi:10.1038/s41598-025-06462-3 60. Wang Y, Guo T, Yuan W, Shu S, Meng C, Bai X. Mamba-based deformable medical image registration with an annotated brain MR-CT dataset. Comput Med Imaging Graph. 2025;123(102566):102566. doi:10.1016/j.compmedimag.2025.102566 61. Li L, Wei W, Yang L, et al. CT-Mamba: A hybrid convolutional State Space Model for low-dose CT denoising. Comput Med Imaging Graph. 2025;124(102595):102595. doi:10.1016/j.compmedimag.2025.102595 62. Aalishah R, Navardi M, Mohsenin T. MedMambaLite: Hardware-aware Mamba for medical image classification. arXiv [eessIV]. Published online August 7, 2025. http://arxiv.org/abs/2508.05049 63. Yang J, Shi R, Wei D, et al. MedMNIST v2 - A large-scale lightweight benchmark for 2D and 3D biomedical image classification. Sci Data. 2023;10(1):41. doi:10.1038/s41597-022-01721-8 64. Cao A, Li Z, Jomsky J, Laine AF, Guo J. MedSegMamba: 3D CNN-Mamba hybrid architecture for brain segmentation. arXiv [eessIV]. Published online September 11, 2024. http://arxiv.org/abs/2409.08307 65. Wei Y, Yang M, Zhang M, et al. Focal liver lesion diagnosis with deep learning and multistage CT imaging. Nat Commun. 2024;15(1):7040. doi:10.1038/s41467-024- 51260-6 66. Urhuț MC, Săndulescu LD, Streba CT, et al. Diagnostic performance of an artificial intelligence model based on contrast-enhanced ultrasound in patients with liver lesions: A comparative study with clinicians. Diagnostics (Basel). 2023;13(21):3387. doi:10.3390/diagnostics13213387 67. Azer SA. Deep learning with convolutional neural networks for identification of liver masses and hepatocellular carcinoma: A systematic review. World J Gastrointest Oncol. 2019;11(12):1218-1230. doi:10.4251/wjgo.v11.i12.1218 68. Nayantara P, Kamath S, Kn M, Kadavigere R. Computer-Aided Diagnosis system for classifying the liver lesions from multiphase CT. Sens Imaging. 2025;26(1). doi:10.1007/s11220-025-00568-8 69. Stahlschmidt SR, Ulfenborg B, Synnergren J. Multimodal deep learning for biomedical data fusion: a review. Brief Bioinform. 2022;23(2). doi:10.1093/bib/bbab569 70. Li Y, El Habib Daho M, Conze PH, et al. A review of deep learning-based information fusion techniques for multimodal medical image classification. Comput Biol Med. 2024;177(108635):108635. doi:10.1016/j.compbiomed.2024.108635 71. Guarrasi V, Aksu F, Caruso CM, et al. A systematic review of intermediate fusion in multimodal deep learning for biomedical applications. Image Vis Comput. 2025;158(105509):105509. doi:10.1016/j.imavis.2025.105509 72. Ahmad I, Anwar SJ, Hussain B, Ur Rehman A, Bermak A. Anatomy guided modality fusion for cancer segmentation in PET CT volumes and images. Sci Rep. 2025;15(1):12153. doi:10.1038/s41598-025-95757-6 73. Liu Z, Hou J, Pan X, Zhang R, Shi Z. PA-Net: A phase attention network fusing venous and arterial phase features of CT images for liver tumor segmentation. Comput Methods Programs Biomed. 2024;244(107997):107997. doi:10.1016/j.cmpb.2023.107997 74. Yu Z, Liu Y, Dai X, Cui E, Cui J, Ma C. Enhancing preoperative diagnosis of microvascular invasion in hepatocellular carcinoma: domain-adaptation fusion of multi-phase CT images. Front Oncol. 2024;14:1332188. doi:10.3389/fonc.2024.1332188 75. Uhm KH, Jung SW, Choi MH, Hong SH, Ko SJ. A unified multi-phase CT synthesis and classification framework for kidney cancer diagnosis with incomplete data. IEEE J Biomed Health Inform. 2022;26(12):6093-6104. doi:10.1109/JBHI.2022.3219123 76. Dao BT, Nguyen TV, Pham HH, Nguyen HQ. Phase recognition in contrast- enhanced CT scans based on deep learning and random sampling. Med Phys. 2022;49(7):4518-4528. doi:10.1002/mp.15551 77. Raju A, Cheng CT, Huo Y, et al. Co-heterogeneous and adaptive segmentation from multi-source and multi-phase CT imaging data: A study on pathological liver and lesion segmentation. In: Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Lecture notes in computer science. Springer International Publishing; 2020:448-465. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-58592-1_27 78. Kline A, Wang H, Li Y, et al. Multimodal machine learning in precision health: A scoping review. NPJ Digit Med. 2022;5(1):171. doi:10.1038/s41746-022-00712-8 79. Jo H, Kim C, Gwon D, et al. Combining clinical and imaging data for predicting functional outcomes after acute ischemic stroke: an automated machine learning approach. Sci Rep. 2023;13(1):16926. doi:10.1038/s41598-023-44201-8 80. Nikolaou N, Salazar D, RaviPrakash H, et al. A machine learning approach for multimodal data fusion for survival prediction in cancer patients. NPJ Precis Oncol. 2025;9(1):128. doi:10.1038/s41698-025-00917-6 81. Braman N, Gordon JWH, Goossens ET, Willis C, Stumpe MC, Venkataraman J. Deep orthogonal fusion: Multimodal prognostic biomarker discovery integrating radiology, pathology, genomic, and clinical data. In: Medical Image Computing and Computer Assisted Intervention – MICCAI 2021. Lecture notes in computer science. Springer International Publishing; 2021:667-677. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-87240- 3_64 82. Duan J, Xiong J, Li Y, Ding W. Deep learning based multimodal biomedical data fusion: An overview and comparative review. Inf Fusion. 2024;112(102536):102536. doi:10.1016/j.inffus.2024.102536 83. Cahan N, Klang E, Marom EM, et al. Multimodal fusion models for pulmonary embolism mortality prediction. Sci Rep. 2023;13(1):7544. doi:10.1038/s41598-023- 34303-8 84. Huang SC, Pareek A, Seyyedi S, Banerjee I, Lungren MP. Fusion of medical imaging and electronic health records using deep learning: a systematic review and implementation guidelines. NPJ Digit Med. 2020;3(1):136. doi:10.1038/s41746- 020-00341-z 85. Wen B, Li C, Cai Q, Shen D, Bu X, Zhou F. Multimodal MRI radiomics-based stacking ensemble learning model with automatic segmentation for prognostic prediction of HIFU ablation of uterine fibroids: a multicenter study. Front Physiol. 2024;15:1507986. doi:10.3389/fphys.2024.1507986 86. Yao S, Yao D, Huang Y, Qin S, Chen Q. A machine learning model based on clinical features and ultrasound radiomics features for pancreatic tumor classification. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2024;15:1381822. doi:10.3389/fendo.2024.1381822 87. Rahman T, Chowdhury MEH, Khandakar A, et al. BIO-CXRNET: a robust multimodal stacking machine learning technique for mortality risk prediction of COVID-19 patients using chest X-ray images and clinical data. Neural Comput Appl. Published online May 4, 2023:1-23. doi:10.1007/s00521-023-08606-w 88. Baik SM, Hong KS, Park DJ. Deep learning approach for early prediction of COVID-19 mortality using chest X-ray and electronic health records. BMC Bioinformatics. 2023;24(1):190. doi:10.1186/s12859-023-05321-0 89. Cui C, Yang H, Wang Y, et al. Deep multimodal fusion of image and non-image data in disease diagnosis and prognosis: a review. Prog Biomed Eng (Bristol). 2023;5(2). doi:10.1088/2516-1091/acc2fe 90. Hashimoto N, Hanada H, Miyoshi H, et al. Multimodal gated mixture of experts using whole slide image and flow cytometry for multiple instance learning classification of lymphoma. J Pathol Inform. 2024;15(100359):100359. doi:10.1016/j.jpi.2023.100359 91. Huang SC, Pareek A, Zamanian R, Banerjee I, Lungren MP. Multimodal fusion with deep neural networks for leveraging CT imaging and electronic health record: a case- study in pulmonary embolism detection. Sci Rep. 2020;10(1):22147. doi:10.1038/s41598-020-78888-w 92. Xu Y, Liu B, Huang X, et al. Artificial intelligence in primary aldosteronism: current achievements and future challenges. Front Mol Biosci. 2025;12:1660588. doi:10.3389/fmolb.2025.1660588 93. Franc V, Prusa D, Voracek V. Optimal strategies for reject option classifiers. arXiv [csLG]. Published online January 29, 2021. http://arxiv.org/abs/2101.12523 94. Bartlett P, Wegkamp M. Classification with a Reject Option using a Hinge Loss. J Mach Learn Res. 2008;9(59):1823-1840. doi:10.5555/1390681.1442792 95. Geifman Y, El-Yaniv R. SelectiveNet: A deep neural network with an integrated reject option. arXiv [csLG]. Published online January 26, 2019. http://arxiv.org/abs/1901.09192 96. Mozannar H, Sontag D. Consistent estimators for learning to defer to an expert. arXiv [csLG]. Published online June 2, 2020. http://arxiv.org/abs/2006.01862 97. Landsheer JA. Interval of uncertainty: An alternative approach for the determination of decision thresholds, with an illustrative application for the prediction of prostate cancer. PLoS One. 2016;11(11):e0166007. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0166007 98. Landsheer JA. The clinical relevance of methods for handling inconclusive medical test results: Quantification of uncertainty in medical decision-making and screening. Diagnostics (Basel). 2018;8(2):32. doi:10.3390/diagnostics8020032 99. Wikipediacontributors.Binaryentropyfunction.Wikipedia,TheFreeEncyclopedia. May 6, 2025. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Binary_entropy_function&oldid=12891 27499 100. He S, Chong P, Yoon BJ, et al. Entropy removal of medical diagnostics. Sci Rep. 2024;14(1):1181. doi:10.1038/s41598-024-51268-4 101. Kang DY, DeYoung PN, Tantiongloc J, Coleman TP, Owens RL. Statistical uncertainty quantification to augment clinical decision support: a first implementation in sleep medicine. NPJ Digit Med. 2021;4(1):142. doi:10.1038/s41746-021-00515-3 102. Lee K, Lee K, Lee H, Shin J. A simple unified framework for detecting out-of- distribution samples and adversarial attacks. arXiv [statML]. Published online July 10, 2018. http://arxiv.org/abs/1807.03888 103. Anthony H, Kamnitsas K. On the use of Mahalanobis distance for out-of-distribution detection with neural networks for medical imaging. arXiv [csCV]. Published online September 4, 2023. http://arxiv.org/abs/2309.01488 104. Zamzmi G, Venkatesh K, Nelson B, et al. Out-of-distribution detection and radiological data monitoring using statistical process control. J Imaging Inform Med. 2025;38(2):997-1015. doi:10.1007/s10278-024-01212-9 105. Subasri V, Krishnan A, Kore A, et al. Detecting and remediating harmful data shifts for the responsible deployment of clinical AI models. JAMA Netw Open. 2025;8(6):e2513685. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2025.13685 106. Wu R, Wang H, Chen HT, Carneiro G. Deep Multimodal Learning with Missing Modality: A survey. arXiv [csCV]. Published online September 12, 2024. http://arxiv.org/abs/2409.07825 107. Wu VC. Taiwan Primary Aldosteronism Study Group. Published online March 5, 2023. doi:10.6084/M9.FIGSHARE.21669929.V9 108. Troyanskaya O, Cantor M, Sherlock G, et al. Missing value estimation methods for DNA microarrays. Bioinformatics. 2001;17(6):520-525. doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/17.6.520 109. van Buuren S, Groothuis-Oudshoorn K. mice: Multivariate Imputation by Chained Equations inR. J Stat Softw. 2011;45(3). doi:10.18637/jss.v045.i03 110. Agathokleous M, Tsapatsoulis N. Voting advice applications: Missing value estimation using matrix factorization and collaborative filtering. In: IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology. IFIP advances in information and communication technology. Springer Berlin Heidelberg; 2013:20-29. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-41142-7_3 111. Mazumder R, Hastie T, Tibshirani R. Spectral regularization algorithms for learning large incomplete matrices. J Mach Learn Res. 2010;11:2287-2322. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21552465 112. Pickhardt PJ, Lubner MG, Kim DH, et al. Abdominal CT with model-based iterative reconstruction (MBIR): initial results of a prospective trial comparing ultralow-dose with standard-dose imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2012;199(6):1266-1274. doi:10.2214/AJR.12.9382 113. Kohavi R, John GH. Wrappers for feature subset selection. Artif Intell. 1997;97(1- 2):273-324. doi:10.1016/s0004-3702(97)00043-x 114. Vittinghoff E, McCulloch CE. Relaxing the rule of ten events per variable in logistic and Cox regression. Am J Epidemiol. 2007;165(6):710-718. doi:10.1093/aje/kwk052 115. Riley RD, Ensor J, Snell KIE, et al. Calculating the sample size required for developing a clinical prediction model. BMJ. 2020;368:m441. doi:10.1136/bmj.m441 116. Zou H, Hastie T. Addendum: Regularization and variable selection via the elastic net. J R Stat Soc Series B Stat Methodol. 2005;67(5):768-768. doi:10.1111/j.1467- 9868.2005.00527.x 117.Hamilton WL, Ying R, Leskovec J. Inductive representation learning on large graphs. arXiv [csSI]. Published online June 7, 2017. http://arxiv.org/abs/1706.02216 118. Kingma DP, Ba J. Adam: A method for stochastic optimization. arXiv [csLG]. Published online December 22, 2014. http://arxiv.org/abs/1412.6980 119. Brody S, Alon U, Yahav E. How Attentive are Graph Attention Networks? arXiv [csLG]. Published online May 30, 2021. http://arxiv.org/abs/2105.14491 120. Lee M. GELU activation function in deep learning: A comprehensive mathematical analysis and performance. arXiv [csLG]. Published online May 19, 2023. http://arxiv.org/abs/2305.12073 121. Guo C, Pleiss G, Sun Y, Weinberger KQ. On calibration of modern neural networks. arXiv [csLG]. Published online June 14, 2017. http://arxiv.org/abs/1706.04599 122. Mao A, Mohri M, Zhong Y. Cross-entropy loss functions: Theoretical analysis and applications. arXiv [csLG]. Published online April 14, 2023. http://arxiv.org/abs/2304.07288 123. Loshchilov I, Hutter F. Decoupled weight decay regularization. arXiv [csLG]. Published online November 14, 2017. http://arxiv.org/abs/1711.05101 124. Smith LN, Topin N. Super-convergence: very fast training of neural networks using large learning rates. In: Pham T, ed. Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning for Multi-Domain Operations Applications. SPIE; 2019. doi:10.1117/12.2520589 125. Glorot X, Bengio Y. Understanding the difficulty of training deep feedforward neural networks. In: Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics. JMLR Workshop and Conference Proceedings. ; 2010. 126. Vaswani A, Shazeer N, Parmar N, et al. Attention is all you need. arXiv [csCL]. Published online June 12, 2017. http://arxiv.org/abs/1706.03762 127. van Griethuysen JJM, Fedorov A, Parmar C, et al. Computational radiomics system to decode the radiographic phenotype. Cancer Res. 2017;77(21):e104-e107. doi:10.1158/0008-5472.can-17-0339 128. Chen T, Guestrin C. XGBoost. In: Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining. ACM; 2016. doi:10.1145/2939672.2939785 129. Bar-Hillel A. Learning a Mahalanobis metric from equivalence constraints. Journal of machine learning research. 2005;6(6). 130. Ledoit O, Wolf M. A well-conditioned estimator for large-dimensional covariance matrices. J Multivar Anal. 2004;88(2):365-411. doi:10.1016/s0047-259x(03)00096- 4 131. Ledoit O, Wolf M. Analytical nonlinear shrinkage of large-dimensional covariance matrices. Ann Stat. 2020;48(5). doi:10.1214/19-aos1921 132.Brereton RG. The chi squared and multinormal distributions. J Chemom. 2015;29(1):9-12. doi:10.1002/cem.2680 133. Huang G, Liao H, Li M. New formulation of Cholesky decomposition and applications in stochastic simulation. Probabilistic Eng Mech. 2013;34:40-47. doi:10.1016/j.probengmech.2013.04.003 134.Ross A, Willson VL. Paired Samples T-Test. In: Basic and Advanced Statistical Tests. SensePublishers; 2017:17-19. doi:10.1007/978-94-6351-086-8_4 135. Lundberg S, Lee SI. A unified approach to interpreting model predictions. arXiv [csAI]. Published online May 22, 2017. http://arxiv.org/abs/1705.07874 136. Selvaraju RR, Cogswell M, Das A, Vedantam R, Parikh D, Batra D. Grad-CAM: Visual explanations from deep networks via gradient-based localization. In: 2017 IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV). IEEE; 2017. doi:10.1109/iccv.2017.74 137. Parzen E. On estimation of a probability density function and mode. Ann Math Stat. 1962;33(3):1065-1076. doi:10.1214/aoms/1177704472 138. Sedgwick P. Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient. BMJ. 2014;349(v28 1):g7327. doi:10.1136/bmj.g7327 139. Zheng Y, Liu X, Zhong Y, Lv F, Yang H. A preliminary study for distinguish hormone-secreting functional adrenocortical adenoma subtypes using multiparametric CT radiomics-based machine learning model and nomogram. Front Oncol. 2020;10:570502. doi:10.3389/fonc.2020.570502 140. Cao L, Xu W. Radiomics approach based on biphasic CT images well differentiate “early stage” of adrenal metastases from lipid-poor adenomas: A STARD compliant article. Medicine (Baltimore). 2022;101(38):e30856. doi:10.1097/MD.0000000000030856 141. Abdar M, Pourpanah F, Hussain S, et al. A review of uncertainty quantification in deep learning: Techniques, applications and challenges. Inf Fusion. 2021;76:243- 297. doi:10.1016/j.inffus.2021.05.008 142. Lakshminarayanan B, Pritzel A, Blundell C. Simple and scalable predictive uncertainty estimation using deep ensembles. arXiv [statML]. Published online December 5, 2016. http://arxiv.org/abs/1612.01474 143. Hendrycks D, Gimpel K. A baseline for detecting misclassified and out-of- distribution examples in neural networks. arXiv [csNE]. Published online October 7, 2016. http://arxiv.org/abs/1610.02136 144. Cattelan LFP, Silva D. How to fix a broken confidence estimator: Evaluating post- hoc methods for selective classification with deep neural networks. arXiv [csLG]. Published online May 24, 2024. http://arxiv.org/abs/2305.15508 145. González C, Gotkowski K, Fuchs M, et al. Distance-based detection of out-of- distribution silent failures for Covid-19 lung lesion segmentation. Med Image Anal. 2022;82(102596):102596. doi:10.1016/j.media.2022.102596 146. Gal Y, Ghahramani Z. Dropout as a Bayesian approximation: Representing model uncertainty in deep learning. arXiv [statML]. Published online June 6, 2015. http://arxiv.org/abs/1506.02142 147. Burrello J, Burrello A, Stowasser M, et al. The primary aldosteronism surgical outcome score for the prediction of clinical outcomes after adrenalectomy for unilateral primary aldosteronism. Ann Surg. 2020;272(6):1125-1132. doi:10.1097/sla.0000000000003200 148.Liu L, Gao J, Beasley G, Jung SH. LASSO and elastic net tend to over-select features. Mathematics. 2023;11(17):3738. doi:10.3390/math11173738 149. Arik SÖ, Pfister T. TabNet: Attentive Interpretable Tabular Learning. Proc Conf AAAI Artif Intell. 2021;35(8):6679-6687. doi:10.1609/aaai.v35i8.16826 150. Wang X, Ma C, Jiang Q, et al. Performance of deep learning model and radiomics model for preoperative prediction of spread through air spaces in the surgically resected lung adenocarcinoma: a two-center comparative study. Transl Lung Cancer Res. 2024;13(12):3486-3499. doi:10.21037/tlcr-24-646 151. Tao J, Liang C, Yin K, et al. 3D convolutional neural network model from contrast-enhanced CT to predict spread through air spaces in non-small cell lung cancer. Diagn Interv Imaging. 2022;103(11):535-544. doi:10.1016/j.diii.2022.06.002 152.Hosny A, Parmar C, Coroller TP, et al. Deep learning for lung cancer prognostication: A retrospective multi-cohort radiomics study. PLoS Med. 2018;15(11):e1002711. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1002711 153. Liu C, Ye F. A review of multimodal medical data fusion techniques for personalized medicine. In: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Biomedical and Intelligent Systems. ACM; 2025:338-347. doi:10.1145/3745034.3745088 154. D’Souza NS, Wang H, Giovannini A, et al. Fusing modalities by multiplexed graph neural networks for outcome prediction from medical data and beyond. Med Image Anal. 2024;93(103064):103064. doi:10.1016/j.media.2023.103064 155. Huang L, Ruan S, Xing Y, Feng M. A review of uncertainty quantification in medical image analysis: Probabilistic and non-probabilistic methods. Med Image Anal. 2024;97(103223):103223. doi:10.1016/j.media.2024.103223 156. Liu H, Wei Z, Xv Y, et al. Validity of a multiphase CT-based radiomics model in predicting the Leibovich risk groups for localized clear cell renal cell carcinoma: an exploratory study. Insights Imaging. 2023;14(1):167. doi:10.1186/s13244-023- 01526-2 157. Meng XP, Wang YC, Ju S, et al. Radiomics analysis on multiphase contrast- enhanced CT: A survival prediction tool in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma undergoing transarterial chemoembolization. Front Oncol. 2020;10:1196. doi:10.3389/fonc.2020.01196 158. Bodard S, Liu Y, Guinebert S, Kherabi Y, Asselah T. Performance of radiomics in microvascular invasion risk stratification and prognostic assessment in hepatocellular carcinoma: A meta-analysis. Cancers (Basel). 2023;15(3):743. doi:10.3390/cancers15030743 159. Eche T, Schwartz LH, Mokrane FZ, Dercle L. Toward generalizability in the deployment of artificial intelligence in radiology: Role of computation stress testing to overcome underspecification. Radiol Artif Intell. 2021;3(6):e210097. doi:10.1148/ryai.2021210097 160. Futoma J, Simons M, Panch T, Doshi-Velez F, Celi LA. The myth of generalisability in clinical research and machine learning in health care. Lancet Digit Health. 2020;2(9):e489-e492. doi:10.1016/S2589-7500(20)30186-2 161. Jiang H, Wei H, Liang L, et al. The evolving role of imaging in hepatocellular carcinoma: From pathomolecular profiling to prognostic decision-making. Liver Cancer. Published online June 12, 2025:1-26. doi:10.1159/000546966 162. Qiao S, Xue M, Zuo Y, et al. Four-phase CT lesion recognition based on multi-phase information fusion framework and spatiotemporal prediction module. Biomed Eng Online. 2024;23(1):103. doi:10.1186/s12938-024-01297-x 163. Mete O, Erickson LA, Juhlin CC, et al. Overview of the 2022 WHO classification of adrenal cortical tumors. Endocr Pathol. 2022;33(1):155-196. doi:10.1007/s12022-022-09710-8 164. Karadepe M, Yanar H, Binokay H, Erdogan S, Akkus G. Immunohistochemical analysis of CYP11B2 (aldosterone synthase) and evaluation of the HISTALDO classification in patients with primary Aldosteronism. Curr Mol Med. 2025;25(7):927-937. doi:10.2174/0115665240378395250416064732 165. Solhusløkk Höse K, Stenman A, Falhammar H, et al. Improving diagnosis in primary aldosteronism using HISTALDO and nodule size metrics. Eur J Endocrinol. 2025;193(2):278-288. doi:10.1093/ejendo/lvaf157 166. Huo T, Wu W, Chen X, et al. Deep learning-based multimodal data fusion in bone tumor management: Advances in clinical decision support. Intelligent Oncology. 2025;1(3):204-215. doi:10.1016/j.intonc.2025.06.005 167. Hager P, Menten MJ, Rueckert D. Best of both worlds: Multimodal contrastive learning with tabular and imaging data. In: 2023 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR). IEEE; 2023. doi:10.1109/cvpr52729.2023.02291 168. Wang C, Wang F. Revolutionizing gastroenterology and hepatology with artificial intelligence: From precision diagnosis to equitable healthcare through interdisciplinary practice Chen ZL. World J Gastroenterol. 2025;31(24). doi:10.3748/wjg.v31.i24.108021 169. Sobhani N, Kugeratski FG, Venturini S, et al. AI-based cancer models in oncology: From diagnosis to ADC drug prediction. Cancers (Basel). 2025;17(21):3419. doi:10.3390/cancers17213419 170. Gao R, Mai S, Wang S, et al. Deep learning for the diagnosis and treatment of thyroid cancer: A review. Endocr Pract. Published online July 30, 2025. doi:10.1016/j.eprac.2025.07.020 171. Ronot M, Chernyak V, Burgoyne A, et al. Imaging to predict prognosis in hepatocellular carcinoma: Current and future perspectives. Radiology. 2023;307(3):e221429. doi:10.1148/radiol.221429 172. Najar Najafi N, Hajihassani H, Azimzadeh Irani M. The impact of artificial intelligence on cancer diagnosis and treatment: A review. Cancer Inform. 2025;24(11769351251371272):11769351251371272. doi:10.1177/11769351251371273 | - |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/101451 | - |
| dc.description.abstract | 準確預測術後預後仍然是臨床決策支持中最迫切的挑戰之一。在原發性醛固 酮增多症(PA)中,這一需求尤為重要。PA 是腎上腺分泌過多的醛固酮所致,會 引發高血壓與心血管風險升高。過去認為 PA 在輕中度高血壓患者中較為罕見, 但近期研究估計其盛行率在高血壓人群中已超過 5-10%。PA 通常被分為雙側型 (BPA)與單側型(UPA)。BPA 多以藥物治療為主,而 UPA 則常以單側腎上腺 切除術(uADX)治療。雖然 uADX 可具治癒性,但僅有約 37-43% 的 UPA 患者 能達到完全臨床治癒。因此,可靠的術前預後預測對於指導治療選擇、防止低成功 率患者接受不必要的手術至關重要。然而,目前的預測方法仍有限,受制於臨床生 化特徵、影像資料與患者預後結果之間複雜的交互作用。
本研究提出了一個多模態深度學習框架,用於 PA 的預後預測,整合臨床與影 像資料,並引入新穎的模型架構策略。第一部分為 GAPPA(Graph-basedApproach for Prognosis Prediction in uADX),其利用圖神經網路(GNN)來捕捉臨床生化特 徵之間的相互依存關係。在一個包含 640 位患者的回溯性資料集中,GAPPA 的表 現顯著優於先進的 TabPFN 與既有機器學習模型,為僅依賴臨床資料的預測建立 了新的基準。在此基礎上,第二部分聚焦於基於影像的預後預測,而這一方面過去 從未將深度學習應用於 PA。本研究開發了一個影像模型 GAMBA (Mamba with Graph-Attention Phase-Fusion for CT-based Prognosis Assessment),其結合三維卷積 神經網路(3DCNN)、新近的 Mamba 架構,以及基於圖注意力(GAT)的相位融 合機制,用以挖掘多相位三維 CT 掃描中的豐富訊息。這是首次將深度學習應用 於 CT 影像的 PA 預後預測,也是較早期將 Mamba 架構延伸應用至三維 CT 影 像預測的嘗試。在一個包含 213 位具影像資料的患者回溯性資料集中,本研究所 提出之模型表現顯著優於基於放射組學的機器學習方法,並達到與 GAPPA 統計 上相當的預測水平,突顯了多相位影像在此情境下的可行性與臨床價值。 最後,本研究提出 CURE(CenteredUncertainty-AwareRejectEnsemble)以整 合預訓練的臨床與影像模型。不同於傳統的集成方法,CURE 能夠靈活結合來自 不同資料集的模型,從而突破兩種模態必須依賴相同患者群體的限制。透過整合臨床資料集與影像資料集進行訓練與分析,CURE 達成了穩健的預測效能,其平均 F1 分數為 74.7% ± 7.3%,準確率 78.8% ± 5.1,AUROC 為 0.858 ± 0.055,敏感性 72.4% ± 11.2%,特異性 83.8% ± 7.0%。這些結果顯著優於僅用 GAPPA 或僅用影 像模型的表現,同時提升了穩健性、可解釋性與臨床應用的靈活性。 總結來說,本研究建立了首個多模態深度學習框架用於 PA 的預後預測。 臨 床模型 GAPPA 為臨床資料建模樹立了新標準,影像模型 GAMBA 引入了創新的 多相位三維 CT 影像學習方法並將 Mamba 架構拓展此領域,而 CURE 則提供了 一種靈活的不確定性感知策略,以整合異質資料及多模態模型。這些創新共同奠定 了一套具臨床意義的 PA 預後預測方法,不僅有助於提升術前諮詢的準確性與價值, 也展示了臨床與影像資料的多模態整合在推動生物醫學預後建模發展上的潛力。 | zh_TW |
| dc.description.abstract | Accurately predicting postoperative prognosis remains one of the most pressing challenges in clinical decision support. In primary aldosteronism (PA), this need is particularly vital. PA results from excessive aldosterone secretion by the adrenal glands, causing hypertension and heightened cardiovascular risk. Once thought rare in patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension, recent studies estimate its prevalence to exceed 5-10% among hypertensive populations. PA is typically categorized into bilateral PA (BPA) and unilateral PA (UPA). While BPA is usually managed with medications, UPA is commonly treated by unilateral adrenalectomy (uADX). Although uADX can be curative, only 37-43% of UPA patients achieve complete clinical success. Consequently, reliable preoperative prognosis prediction is essential to inform treatment selection, prevent unnecessary surgery in patients with a low likelihood of success. Yet current predictive methods remain limited, constrained by the complex interactions among clinico-biochemical features, imaging data, and postoperative prognosis.
This study proposes a multimodal deep learning framework for prognosis prediction in PA, integrating clinical and imaging data with novel architectural strategies. The first component, GAPPA (Graph-based Approach for Prognosis Prediction after uADX), employs graph neural networks (GNNs) to capture interdependencies among clinico-biochemical features. Using a retrospective cohort of 640 patients, GAPPA demonstrated significantly superior performance compared with the state-of-the-art TabPFN and prior machine learning models, thereby establishing a new benchmark for clinical-only prediction. The second component addresses imaging-based prognosis prediction, where deep learning has not previously been applied to PA. A model, GAMBA (Mamba with Graph-Attention Phase-Fusion for CT-based Prognosis Assessment) was developed to combine three-dimensional convolutional neural networks (3DCNN) with the novel Mamba architecture and a phase-fusion mechanism based on graph attention (GAT) to harness the rich information contained in multiphase 3D CT scans. This represents the first application of deep learning to CT imaging for PA prognosis and an early adaptation of the Mamba architecture to 3D CT imaging. In a retrospective cohort of 213 patients with available imaging data, this model outperformed radiomics-based machine learning approaches and achieved performance comparable to GAPPA, underscoring the feasibility and clinical value of multiphase imaging in this setting. Finally, this study proposes CURE (Centered Uncertainty-Aware Reject Ensemble) to integrate the pretrained clinical and imaging models. Unlike conventional ensemble techniques, CURE can flexibly combine models derived from distinct cohorts, thereby overcoming the constraint that both modalities must rely on the same patient population. By leveraging the clinical cohort together with the imaging cohort, CURE achieved robust predictive performance, with F1-score of 74.7% ± 7.3%, accuracy of 78.8% ± 5.1%, AUROC of 0.858 ± 0.055, sensitivity of 72.4% ± 11.2%, and specificity of 83.8% ± 7.0%. These results significantly surpassed those of either GAPPA or GAMBA alone, while enhancing robustness, interpretability, and flexibility for clinical application. In conclusion, this study establishes the first comprehensive multimodal deep learning framework for prognosis prediction in PA. The clinical model GAPPA sets new standards for clinical data modeling, the imaging model GAMBA introduced an innovative multiphase CT-based approach and extended the application of Mamba to this domain, and CURE provided a flexible uncertainty-aware strategy for integrating heterogeneous cohorts and multimodal models. Collectively, these innovations deliver a clinically meaningful framework for PA prognosis prediction, with the potential to improve preoperative counseling, while also demonstrating how multimodal integration of clinical and imaging data can advance prognostic modeling in biomedicine. | en |
| dc.description.provenance | Submitted by admin ntu (admin@lib.ntu.edu.tw) on 2026-02-03T16:23:24Z No. of bitstreams: 0 | en |
| dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2026-02-03T16:23:24Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 0 | en |
| dc.description.tableofcontents | 口試委員會審定書 #
Acknowledgements i 中文摘要 iii ABSTRACT v CONTENTS ix LIST OF FIGURES xii LIST OF TABLES xiii Chapter 1 Introduction 1 1.1 Background of Primary Aldosteronism 1 1.2 Motivation for Prognosis Prediction 2 1.3 Research Gaps 3 1.4 Objective and Contributions 5 Chapter 2 Literature Review 7 2.1 Primary Aldosteronism and Prognosis Studies 7 2.2 Machine Learning in Clinical Prognosis Prediction 9 2.3 Graph Neural Networks in Biomedicine 10 2.4 Medical Imaging Approaches 12 2.5 Multimodal Learning in Biomedicine 15 2.6 Uncertainty-Aware and Reject Models 17 Chapter 3 Materials and Methods 21 3.1 Dataset and Patient Cohorts 21 3.2 Data Preprocessing 24 3.2.1 Clinical Data 24 3.2.2 Imaging Data 25 3.3 GAPPA: Clinical-Based Prognosis Model 26 3.3.1 Clinico-biochemical Feature Selection 26 3.3.2 GAPPA Model Architecture 27 3.3.3 Modeling Clinical Prognosis as Link Prediction 29 3.3.4 Algorithm and Implementation Details 30 3.3.5 Model Training-testing Phases 33 3.3.6 Experimental Settings 35 3.3.7 Ablation Study and Model Comparison 35 3.4 GAMBA: Imaging-Based Prognosis Model 37 3.4.1 Volume Augmentation and Batching for Multiphase 3D CT 37 3.4.2 GAMBA Model Architecture 39 3.4.3 Dynamic Phase-Fusion with Graph-Attention Networks 41 3.4.4 Model Training-testing Phases 42 3.4.5 Experimental Settings 44 3.4.6 Ablation Study and Model Comparison 45 3.5 CURE: Centered Uncertainty-Aware Reject Ensemble 51 3.5.1 Leveraging Pretrained Unimodal Experts in CURE 52 3.5.2 CURE Algorithm Design 52 3.5.3 Mathematical Details 54 3.5.4 Model Training-testing Phases 58 3.5.5 Experimental Settings 58 3.5.6 Ablation Study and Model Comparison 58 3.6 Evaluation Metrics 61 Chapter 4 Results 63 4.1 Performance of GAPPA (Clinical Model) 63 4.1.1 Clinico-biochemical Feature Selection 63 4.1.2 Ablation Study and Model Comparison 65 4.1.3 Clinico-biochemical Feature Importance Analysis 68 4.2 Performance of GAMBA (Imaging Model) 72 4.2.1 GAMBA Architectural Ablation and Radiomics Comparison 72 4.2.2 Grad-CAM comparison between 3DCNN and 3DCNN-Mamba 74 4.2.3 Ablation Study of Phase-fusion Modules 76 4.3 Cohort-Matched Comparison of GAPPA and GAMBA 79 4.4 Performance of CURE (Multimodal Model) 80 4.4.1 Ablation Study of CURE and Model Comparison 80 4.4.2 Analysis of Model Uncertainty and Reliability 82 Chapter 5 Discussion 87 5.1 Clinical Implications 87 5.2 Engineering Contributions 89 5.3 Comparison with Existing Studies and Models 95 5.4 Limitations 100 5.5 Future Directions 103 Chapter 6 Conclusion 105 REFERENCES 107 | - |
| dc.language.iso | en | - |
| dc.subject | 原發性高醛固酮症預後預測 | - |
| dc.subject | 單側腎上腺切除術治療結果 | - |
| dc.subject | 多模態深度學習 | - |
| dc.subject | 圖神經網路 | - |
| dc.subject | 三維多相位 CT 影像 | - |
| dc.subject | Mamba 狀態-空間模型 | - |
| dc.subject | 不確定性感知集成方法 | - |
| dc.subject | Primary aldosteronism prognosis prediction | - |
| dc.subject | unilateral adrenalectomy outcomes | - |
| dc.subject | multimodal deep learning | - |
| dc.subject | graph neural networks | - |
| dc.subject | 3D multiphase CT imaging | - |
| dc.subject | Mamba state-space models | - |
| dc.subject | uncertainty-aware ensemble | - |
| dc.title | 多模態深度學習於原發性高醛固酮症之預後預測: 結合臨床與影像資料 | zh_TW |
| dc.title | Multimodal Deep Learning for Prognosis Prediction in Primary Aldosteronism Using Clinical and Imaging Data | en |
| dc.type | Thesis | - |
| dc.date.schoolyear | 114-1 | - |
| dc.description.degree | 博士 | - |
| dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 闕士傑;吳文超;程子翔;李佳燕 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | Jeff Shih-Chieh Chueh;WEN-CHAU WU;Kevin Tze-Hsiang Chen;Chia-Yen Lee | en |
| dc.subject.keyword | 原發性高醛固酮症預後預測,單側腎上腺切除術治療結果多模態深度學習圖神經網路三維多相位 CT 影像Mamba 狀態-空間模型不確定性感知集成方法 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject.keyword | Primary aldosteronism prognosis prediction,unilateral adrenalectomy outcomesmultimodal deep learninggraph neural networks3D multiphase CT imagingMamba state-space modelsuncertainty-aware ensemble | en |
| dc.relation.page | 120 | - |
| dc.identifier.doi | 10.6342/NTU202600239 | - |
| dc.rights.note | 同意授權(全球公開) | - |
| dc.date.accepted | 2026-01-23 | - |
| dc.contributor.author-college | 工學院 | - |
| dc.contributor.author-dept | 醫學工程學系 | - |
| dc.date.embargo-lift | 2026-02-04 | - |
| 顯示於系所單位: | 醫學工程學研究所 | |
文件中的檔案:
| 檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| ntu-114-1.pdf | 3.76 MB | Adobe PDF | 檢視/開啟 |
系統中的文件,除了特別指名其著作權條款之外,均受到著作權保護,並且保留所有的權利。
