Comparison of the Diagnostic Accuracy of DSC- and Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced MRI in the Preoperative Grading of Astrocytomas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging parameters can be biased by poor measurement of the vascular input function. We have compared the diagnostic accuracy of dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging by using a phase-derived vascular input function and "bookend" T1 measurements with DSC MR imaging for preoperative grading of astrocytomas. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This prospective study included 48 patients with a new pathologic diagnosis of an astrocytoma. Preoperative MR imaging was performed at 3T, which included 2 injections of 5-mL gadobutrol for dynamic contrast-enhanced and DSC MR imaging. During dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging, both magnitude and phase images were acquired to estimate plasma volume obtained from phase-derived vascular input function (Vp_Φ) and volume transfer constant obtained from phase-derived vascular input function (K(trans)_Φ) as well as plasma volume obtained from magnitude-derived vascular input function (Vp_SI) and volume transfer constant obtained from magnitude-derived vascular input function (K(trans)_SI). From DSC MR imaging, corrected relative CBV was computed. Four ROIs were placed over the solid part of the tumor, and the highest value among the ROIs was recorded. A Mann-Whitney U test was used to test for difference between grades. Diagnostic accuracy was assessed by using receiver operating characteristic analysis. RESULTS: Vp_ Φ and K(trans)_Φ values were lower for grade II compared with grade III astrocytomas (P < .05). Vp_SI and K(trans)_SI were not significantly different between grade II and grade III astrocytomas (P = .08-0.15). Relative CBV and dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging parameters except for K(trans)_SI were lower for grade III compared with grade IV (P ≤ .05). In differentiating low- and high-grade astrocytomas, we found no statistically significant difference in diagnostic accuracy between relative CBV and dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging parameters. CONCLUSIONS: In the preoperative grading of astrocytomas, the diagnostic accuracy of dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging parameters is similar to that of relative CBV.
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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 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".