MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1266608343 · doi:10.1097/mnm.0000000000000370

The relative value of 18F-FDG PET interpretation criteria in generating a probabilistic approach for characterization of pulmonary nodules

2015· article· en· W1266608343 on OpenAlexaff
Anna Danilenko, Mathieu Charest, Antoine Leblond

Bibliographic record

VenueNuclear Medicine Communications · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLung Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de MontréalHôpital du Sacré-Cœur de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMalignancyMedicineRadiologyMediastinumCutoffNodule (geology)Radiological weaponNuclear medicineSampling (signal processing)Standardized uptake valuePositron emission tomographyInternal medicineComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: The evaluation of pulmonary nodules constitutes a large part of PET-CT studies. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the different interpretation criteria in F-fluorodeoxyglucose PET attenuation-corrected and non-attenuation-corrected studies as individual predictors of malignancy in order to propose a useful combination of criteria that can be used in daily practice to classify nodules appropriately. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We performed a historical prospective survey of all consecutive patients referred to our service for the initial assessment of pulmonary nodules and sought the final characterization of these nodules either from tissue sampling or from radiological and clinical follow-up. RESULTS: A total of 104 nodules from 82 patients were included, with a prevalence of malignancy of 53%. Absence of uptake on non-attenuation-corrected studies was found to be the best predictive criterion for benignancy, with a negative predictive value of 97%, and the highest relative risk for malignancy, with a value of 20.9. Uptake higher than that of the mediastinum on attenuation-corrected images was found to be the best criterion for predicting malignancy, with a positive predictive value of 89% and a sensitivity of 73%, which is slightly better than the use of a maximal standardized uptake value cutoff of 3.0. By combining our best negative and positive criteria, we were able to classify 71% (74/104) of the lung nodules with a high level of confidence. More specifically, these two criteria allowed the correct classification of 72% (40/55) of malignant nodules and 57% (28/49) of benign nodules. The 30 remaining nodules were equally distributed in terms of malignancy and had similar characteristics on both PET and CT images. CONCLUSION: A probabilistic approach to pulmonary nodule characterization may help the reading physician to appropriately classify lung nodules into useful categories for the treating physician, moving away from nonstandardized reporting terms.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.922
Threshold uncertainty score0.239

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.058
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.285 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNuclear Medicine CommunicationsSame topicLung Cancer Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207