MR elastography and diffusion‐weighted imaging of <i>ex vivo</i> prostate cancer: quantitative comparison to histopathology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this work was (1) to develop a magnetic resonance elastography (MRE) system for imaging of the ex vivo human prostate and (2) to assess the diagnostic power of mono-frequency and multi-frequency MRE and diffusion weighted imaging (DWI) alone and combined as correlated with histopathology in a patient study. An electromagnetic driver was designed specifically for MRE studies in small-bore MR scanners. Ex vivo prostate specimens (post-fixation) of 14 patients who underwent radical prostatectomy were imaged with MRE at 7 T (nine cases had DWI). In six patients, the MRE examination was performed at three frequencies (600, 800, 1000 Hz) to extract the power-law exponent Gamma. The images were registered to wholemount pathology slides marked with the Gleason score. The areas under the receiver-operator-characteristic curves (AUC) were calculated. The methods were validated in a phantom study and it was demonstrated that (i) the driver does not interfere with the acquisition process and (ii) the driver can generate amplitudes greater than 100 µm for frequencies less than 1 kHz. In the quantitative study, cancerous tissue with Gleason score at least 3 + 3 was distinguished from normal tissue in the peripheral zone (PZ) with an average AUC of 0.75 (Gd ), 0.75 (Gl ), 0.70 (Gamma-Gd ), 0.68 (apparent diffusion coefficient, ADC), and 0.82 (Gd + Gl + ADC). The differentiation between PZ and central gland was modest for Gd (p < 0.07), Gl (p < 0.06) but not significant for Gamma (p < 0.2). A correlation of 0.4 kPa/h was found between the fixation time of the prostate specimen and the stiffness of the tissue, which could affect the diagnostic power results. DWI and MRE may provide complementary information; in fact MRE performed better than ADC in distinguishing normal from cancerous tissue in some cases. Multi-frequency (Gamma) analysis did not appear to improve the results. However, in light of the effect of tissue fixation, the clinical implication of our results may be inconclusive and more experiments are needed.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".