Magnetic resonance imaging biomarkers of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease prior to radiation therapy for non-small cell lung cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: In this prospectively planned interim-analysis, the prevalence of chronic obstructive lung disease (COPD) phenotypes was determined using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and X-ray computed tomography (CT) in non-small-cell-lung-cancer (NSCLC) patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Stage-III-NSCLC patients provided written informed consent for pulmonary function tests, imaging and the 6-min-walk-test. Ventilation defect percent (VDP) and CT lung density (relative-of-CT-density-histogram <-950, RA950) were measured. Patients were classified into three subgroups based on qualitative and quantitative COPD and tumour-specific imaging phenotypes: (1) tumour-specific ventilation defects (TSD), (2) tumour-specific and other ventilation defects without emphysema (TSDV), and, (3) tumour-specific and other ventilation defects with emphysema (TSDVE). RESULTS: Seventeen stage-III NSCLC patients were evaluated (68 ± 7 years, 7 M/10 F, mean FEV1 = 77%pred) including seven current and 10 ex-smokers and eight patients with a prior lung disease diagnosis. There was a significant difference for smoking history (p = .02) and FEV1/FVC (p = .04) for subgroups classified using quantitative imaging. Patient subgroups classified using qualitative imaging findings were significantly different for emphysema (RA950, p < .001). There were significant relationships for whole-lung VDP (p < .05), but not RECIST or tumour-lobe VDP measurements with pulmonary function and exercise measurements. Preliminary analysis for non-tumour burden ventilation abnormalities using Reader-operator-characteristic (ROC) curves reflected a 94% classification rate for smoking pack-years, 93% for FEV1/FVC and 82% for RA950. ROC sensitivity/specificity/positive/negative likelihood ratios were also generated for pack-years, (0.92/0.80/4.6/0.3), FEV1/FVC (0.92/0.80/4.6/0.3), RA950 (0.92/0.80/4.6/0.3) and RECIST (0.58/0.80/2.9/1.1). CONCLUSIONS: In this prospectively planned interim-analysis of a larger clinical trial, NSCLC patients were classified based on COPD imaging phenotypes. A proof-of-concept evaluation showed that FEV1/FVC and smoking history identified NSCLC patients with ventilation abnormalities appropriate for functional lung avoidance radiotherapy.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".