mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Complementary Roles of Radiomics and Foundation Representations in Renal Cell Carcinoma Classification: A Comparative Study of 2D and 3D CT Encodings

arXiv 2609.26463 ↗First posted 22 Sep 2026cs.CV cs.AIcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Accurate preoperative subtype classification of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) from contrast-enhanced computed tomography remains clinically challenging. Radiomics provides structured tumour descriptors, whereas foundation representations offer transferable image features. However, it remains unclear whether radiomics still adds value beyond pretrained representations, and how 2D and 3D MedVAE encoders compare in this setting. We compared handcrafted radiomics, 2D MedVAE, 3D MedVAE, and their fusion for binary clear-cell RCC versus non-clear-cell RCC classification on KiTS23 under a unified preprocessing pipeline. Concatenation, cross-attention, and gated fusion were evaluated as representative integration strategies, and radiomics feature importance was analysed to support decision-centric interpretability. Fusion consistently improved discrimination over image-only MedVAE branches. The best overall performance was achieved by 3D gated fusion, with an AUC of 82.7%, outperforming the best 2D fusion model (79.6%), the radiomics baseline (74.4%), and the single-modality MedVAE branches. Ablation analysis further showed clear gains of the full fusion model over both image-only and radiomics-only variants, indicating complementary contributions from radiomics and image representations. These findings suggest that radiomics remains relevant for RCC CT classification in the presence of foundation representations, and that its integration with MedVAE is more effective in the 3D setting. More broadly, the study supports a complementary role for radiomics and foundation representations in clinically meaningful imaging decision support.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 23 of its 42 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 22 Sep 2026.

Builds on

23 of 42 references.

References · 23

  1. 2017Attention Is All You Needcited by 59,932
  2. 2021Learning Transferable Visual Models From Natural Language Supervisioncited by 33,456
  3. 2020An Image is Worth 16x16 Words: Transformers for Image Recognition at Scalecited by 29,915
  4. 2023Segment Anythingcited by 8,158
  5. 2021Masked Autoencoders Are Scalable Vision Learnerscited by 7,339
  6. 2016Grad-CAM: Visual Explanations from Deep Networks via Gradient-based Localizationcited by 6,690
  7. 2017A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictionscited by 6,488
  8. 2021On the Opportunities and Risks of Foundation Modelscited by 3,961
  9. 2017Axiomatic Attribution for Deep Networkscited by 3,350
  10. 2013Deep Inside Convolutional Networks: Visualising Image Classification Models and Saliency Mapscited by 2,348
  11. 2017Towards A Rigorous Science of Interpretable Machine Learningcited by 1,400
  12. 2017A Survey on Deep Learning in Medical Image Analysiscited by 1,182
11 more
  1. 2018Sanity Checks for Saliency Mapscited by 1,149
  2. 2017Multimodal Machine Learning: A Survey and Taxonomycited by 1,004
  3. 2022MedCLIP: Contrastive Learning from Unpaired Medical Images and Textcited by 564
  4. 2022MONAI: An open-source framework for deep learning in healthcarecited by 438
  5. 2019Med3D: Transfer Learning for 3D Medical Image Analysiscited by 282
  6. 2017Gated Multimodal Units for Information Fusioncited by 244
  7. 2019Models Genesis: Generic Autodidactic Models for 3D Medical Image Analysiscited by 159
  8. 2021Explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) in deep learning-based medical image analysiscited by 147
  9. 2024Merlin: A Computed Tomography Vision-Language Foundation Model and Datasetcited by 97
  10. 2016Image biomarker standardisation initiativecited by 61
  11. 2025MedVAE: Efficient Automated Interpretation of Medical Images with Large-Scale Generalizable Autoencoderscited by 20

Built on by

Not cited yet.