MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Role of magnetic resonance imaging in bladder cancer: current status and emerging techniques

2012· review· en· W1581856783 on OpenAlexaff
David A. Green, M. Durand, Naveen Gumpeni, Michael Rink, Pierre I. Karakiewicz, Douglas S. Scherr, Shahrokh F. Shariat

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Urology · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBladder and Urothelial Cancer Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBladder cancerMagnetic resonance imagingCancerRadiologyProspective cohort studyLymph nodeGold standard (test)PathologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

What's known on the subject? and What does the study add? According to current treatment guidelines, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) or computed tomography (CT) can be used to assist in staging bladder cancer patients being considered for radical surgery. In this article, we review the evidence supporting the use of MRI for bladder cancer staging. The ability of MRI to differentiate non‐muscle invasive from muscle‐invasive bladder cancer, to differentiate organ‐confined from non‐organ‐confined bladder cancer, and to identify lymph node metastases is described in detail. Additionally, the role of MRI as a biomarker of chemotherapeutic response in bladder cancer is reviewed and summarized. OBJECTIVES • To evaluate the current status of magnetic resonance imaging (MR) as a staging tool for bladder cancer. • To investigate the role of MR in assessing chemotherapeutic response in bladder cancer patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS • A Pubmed/MEDLINE search was conducted to identify original articles, review articles, and editorials regarding the use of MR in bladder cancer. RESULTS • Contrast‐enhanced MR and diffusion weighted MR (DW‐MRI) can likely distinguish between non‐muscle invasive bladder cancer and muscle invasive cancer with >80% accuracy. • Some advantages of DW‐MRI are the differentiation of benign versus malignant tissue involvement without the need for intravenous contrast, and the possibility of obtaining information on histologic grade and T stage. • Traditional MR sequence have low sensitivity for identifying small lymph node metastases but MR lymphography (MRL) using ultra‐small paramagnetic iron oxide (USPIO) may enhance their detectin. • There may be a role for DW‐MRI in the evaluation of chemotherapeutic response in bladder cancer patients. CONCLUSION • To date, sample sizes and study designs are insufficient to clearly establish the role of MR in bladder cancer management, and to this end, well designed prospective trials 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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0050.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.006
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.311 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations49
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of UrologySame topicBladder and Urothelial Cancer TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207