MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1846079431 · doi:10.1002/jmri.25033

Evaluation of apparent diffusion coefficient and MR volumetry as independent associative factors for extra‐prostatic extension (EPE) in prostatic carcinoma

2015· article· en· W1846079431 on OpenAlexaff
Christopher S. Lim, Trevor A. Flood, Shaheed W. Hakim, Wael Shabana, Jeffrey S. Quon, Mohamed El‐Khodary, Rebecca E. Thornhill, Soufiane El Hallani, Nicola Schieda

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEffective diffusion coefficientProstate cancerProstatectomyReceiver operating characteristicNuclear medicineRectal examinationProstateProstate-specific antigenUltrasoundArea under the curveUrologyRadiologyMagnetic resonance imagingCancerInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: To assess mean apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) and MR-derived tumor volume (Vt) as associative factors for extra-prostatic extension (EPE) in prostate cancer (PCa). METHODS: With institutional review board approval, 73 consecutive patients diagnosed with PCa at trans-rectal ultrasound biopsy underwent preoperative multi-parametric (T2W+DWI+DCE) 3 Tesla MRI before radical prostatectomy between 2012 and 2014; 52% (38/73) patients had EPE. Clinical parameters including: age, prostate serum antigen (PSA), digital rectal examination (DRE) and percentage positive cores (PPC) were recorded. Two blinded radiologists subjectively evaluated for EPE using PI-RADS with T2W-MRI. A third blinded radiologist recorded: mean ADC (mm(2) /s) of tumor and tumor volume on ADC and T2W (derived from planar volumetry). VtMAX (the largest volume on ADC or T2W) was documented. Multivariate and receiver operator characteristic analyses were performed. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in age, DRE, or Gleason score between groups (P = 0.52, 0.06, 0.61, 0.36). PSA approached significance being higher with EPE (12.9 ± 12.6 versus 8.2 ± 7.4; P = 0.06). PPC was higher with EPE (60.9 ± 21.9% versus 38.3 ± 21.6%; P < 0.01) with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.78 and sensitivity/specificity = 75.7/75% when PPC ≥ 45%. AUC for T2W-MRI was 0.46-0.51 with sensitivity/specificity = 40.0-42.9/48.6-57.1% (R1, R2). Inter-observer agreement was fair, k = 0.39. There was no difference in mean ADC between groups (0.89 ± 0.25 versus 0.88 ± 0.19 [EPE] mm(2) /s), P = 0.70. T2W-Vt, ADC-Vt, and VtMAX were larger with EPE (5.1 ± 7.4, 5.8 ± 6.5, 6.3 ± 7.4 cm(3) versus 1.6 ± 1.8, 1.8 ± 1.3, 2.1 ± 1.8), P < 0.01. VtMAX AUC was 0.77 with sensitivity/specificity = 78.4/73.5% when VtMAX ≥ 2.1 cm(3) which outperformed all other parameters (P > 0.05) except PPC (P = 0.6) for the diagnosis EPE. CONCLUSION: MR volumetry and percentage of positive core biopsies are associated with EPE; whereas, in this study, other clinical and MR parameters including mean ADC and subjective T2W-MR analysis were not useful for assessment of EPE.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.178
Threshold uncertainty score0.586

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.043
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.282 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations36
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Magnetic Resonance ImagingSame topicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207