Evaluating agreement between solid tumor measurements used to assess response
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To propose and demonstrate using Bland-Altman plots and Limits of Agreement based on the relative difference(RD) in solid tumor measurements to assess agreement. Methods: A modification to the Bland-Altman plot which involves replacing the difference plotted on the vertical axis withthe relative percent difference between two measurements of tumor burden is discussed. Quantifying tumor burden requiressumming skewed individual tumor measurements. This quantity is the same one used in assessing tumor response to therapeuticagents and is familiar to radiologists and clinicians working with cancer patients. The distribution of the relative difference isexplored and revised equations for the limits of agreement are presented. The methods are then applied to positron emissiontomography data studying two radiotracers. Results: The distribution of the relative difference is highly skewed and can be approximated by a negative shifted lognormaldistribution. The limits of agreement for the RD need to appropriately reflect this distribution. The standard equations for the95% limits of agreement assume the differences are approximately normally distributed and may not be appropriate for therelative difference. Conclusions: The modified Bland-Altman plot is based on a clinically meaningful quantity and provides a method for handlingdata with multiple lesions per patient.
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.
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 | 0.012 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it