MR elastography of prostate cancer: quantitative comparison with histopathology and repeatability of methods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this work was to assess trans-perineal prostate magnetic resonance elastography (MRE) for (1) repeatability in phantoms/volunteers and (2) diagnostic power as correlated with histopathology in prostate cancer patients. The three-dimensional (3D) displacement field was obtained using a fractionally encoded gradient echo sequence using a custom-made transducer. The repeatability of the method was assessed based on three repeat studies and by changing the driving frequency by 3% in studies on a phantom and six healthy volunteers. Subsequently, 11 patients were examined with MRE prior to radical prostatectomy. The areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves were calculated using a windowed voxel-to-voxel approach by comparing the 2D registered slides, masked with the Gleason score. For the repeatability study, the average intraclass correlation coefficient for elasticity images was 99% for repeat phantom studies, 98% for ±6 Hz phantom studies, 95% for volunteer repeat studies with 2 min acquisition time, 82% for ±2 Hz volunteer studies with 2 min acquisition time and 73% for repeat volunteer studies with 8 min acquisition time. For the patient study, the average elasticity was 8.2 ± 1.7 kPa in the prostate capsule, 7.5 ± 1.9 kPa in the peripheral zone (PZ), 9.7 ± 3.0 kPa in the central gland (CG) and 9.0 ± 3.4 kPa in the transition zone. In the patient study, cancerous tissue with Gleason score at least 3 + 3 was significantly (p < 0.05) different from normal tissue in 10 out of 11 cases with tumors in the PZ, and 6 out of 9 cases with tumors in the CG. However, the overall case-averaged area under the curve was 0.72 in the PZ and 0.67 in the CG. Cancerous tissue was not always stiffer than normal tissue. The inversion algorithm was sensitive to (i) vibration amplitude and displacement nodes and (ii) misalignment of the 3D wave field due to subject movement.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".