MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1521584109 · doi:10.1002/jmri.24694

Multi‐parametric (mp) MRI of prostatic ductal adenocarcinoma

2014· article· en· W1521584109 on OpenAlexaff
Niamh Coffey, Nicola Schieda, Greg O. Cron, Previn Gulavita, Trevor A. Flood

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEffective diffusion coefficientProstatectomyProstate cancerProstatic adenocarcinomaProstateUrologyAdenocarcinomaNuclear medicineMagnetic resonance imagingUnivariate analysisCancerRadiologyInternal medicineMultivariate analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Prostatic ductal adenocarcinoma (DCa) is an aggressive variant of conventional adenocarcinoma (CCa) with mixed DCa and CCa tumors comprising up to 5% of all prostate cancers. DCa may be underestimated on T2-weighted (T2W) MRI. This study assessed the mp-MRI appearance of DCa as compared with CCa. METHODS: With research ethics board approval, we identified 38 patients who underwent mp-MRI (T2W, DWI, and DCE) and radical prostatectomy (RP) between 2012 and 2014. Eight DCa in 8 patients and 39 CCa tumor foci in 30 consecutive patients were identified. Tumor volume, apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC;10(-3) mm(2) /s), and time-signal intensity (SI) curves were calculated. Parametric data were compared using the Kruskal-Wallis test and univariate regression. Time-SI curves were compared using the chi-square test. RESULTS: Tumor volumes were: 1.62(±1.02) for DCa, 1.03(±0.54) for Gleason 9, 0.88(±0.93) for Gleason 7/8, and 0.26(±0.14) mL for Gleason 6. There was no difference in size between DCa and Gleason 9 (P = 0.22); however, DCa were larger than Gleason 7/8 (P = 0.03) and Gleason 6 (P = 0.003) tumors. ADC values were: 0.789(±0.22) for DCa, 1.01(±0.19) for Gleason 9, 0.992(±0.23) for Gleason 7/8 and 1.389(±0.41) 10(-3) mm(2) /s for Gleason 6 tumors. There was no difference in ADC between DCa and Gleason 9 (P = 0.14) or Gleason 7/8 (P = 0.055) tumors. There was a difference in ADC for DCa and Gleason ≥7 CCa compared to Gleason 6 tumors, (P < 0.001 and P = 0.012). All DCa demonstrated type III time-SI curves. Gleason ≥ 7 tumors demonstrated type II/III curves. Gleason 6 tumors demonstrated Type I/II time-SI curves. There was no difference in curve type between groups, (P = 0.18). CONCLUSION: Although DCa mimics Gleason score 3 + 3 = 6 tumor at T2W MRI; DCa resembles Gleason ≥7 CCa on mp-MRI.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.182
Threshold uncertainty score0.543

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.255 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations24
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Magnetic Resonance ImagingSame topicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207