Comparison of quantitative and qualitative scoring approaches for radiation-induced pulmonary fibrosis as applied to a preliminary investigation into the efficacy of mesenchymal stem cell delivery methods in a rat model
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Objectives: Compare a quantitative, algorithm-driven, and qualitative, pathologist-driven, scoring of radiation-induced pulmonary fibrosis (RIPF). And using these scoring models to derive preliminary comparisons on the effects of different mesenchymal stem cell (MSC) administration modalities in reducing RIPF. Methods 25 rats were randomized into 5 groups: non-irradiated control (CG), irradiated control (CR), intraperitoneally administered granulocyte-macrophage colony stimulating factor or GM-CSF (Drug), intravascularly administered MSC (IV), and intratracheally administered MSC (IT). All groups, except CG, received an 18 Gy conformal dose to the right lung. Drug, IV and IT groups were treated immediately after irradiation. After 24 weeks of observation, rats were euthanized, their lungs excised, fixed and stained with Masson’s Trichrome. Samples were anonymized and RIPF was scored qualitatively by a certified pathologist and quantitatively using ImageScope. An analysis of association was conducted, and two binary classifiers trained to validate the integrity of both qualitative and quantitative scoring. Differences between the treatment groups, as assessed by the pathologist score, were then tested by variance component analysis and mixed models for differences in RIPF outcomes. Results: There is agreement between qualitative and quantitative scoring for RIPF grades from 4 to 7. Both classifiers performed similarly on the testing set (AUC = 0.923) indicating accordance between the qualitative and quantitative scoring. For comparisons between MSC infusion modalities, the Drug group had better outcomes (mean pathologist scoring of 3.96), correlating with significantly better RIPF outcomes than IV [lower by 0.97, p = 0.047, 95% CI = (0.013, 1.918)] and resulting in an improvement over CR [lower by 0.93, p = 0.037, 95% CI = (0.062, 1.800]. Conclusion: Quantitative image analysis may help in the assessment of therapeutic interventions for RIPF and can serve as a scoring surrogate in differentiating between severe and mild cases of RIPF. Preliminary data demonstrate that the use of GM-CSF was best correlated with lower RIPF severity. Advances in knowledge Quantitative image analysis can be a viable supplemental system of quality control and triaging in situations where pathologist work hours or resources are limited. The use of different MSC administration methods can result in different degrees of MSC efficacy and study outcomes.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».