MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1985340518 · doi:10.1016/j.juro.2011.11.112

Impact of Multiparametric Endorectal Coil Prostate Magnetic Resonance Imaging on Disease Reclassification Among Active Surveillance Candidates: A Prospective Cohort Study

2012· article· en· W1985340518 on OpenAlexaff
David Margel, Stanley A. Yap, Nathan Lawrentschuk, Laurence Klotz, Masoom A. Haider, Karen Hersey, Antonio Finelli, Alexandre R. Zlotta, John Trachtenberg, Neil Fleshner

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Urology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsSunnybrook Health Science CentrePrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMagnetic resonance imagingMedicineProstate cancerBiopsyRadiologyProspective cohort studyProstateCancerPathologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: We report magnetic resonance imaging findings among unselected men with low risk prostate cancer before active surveillance. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We prospectively enrolled men with low grade, low risk, localized prostate cancer. All patients underwent multiparametric endorectal coil magnetic resonance imaging and were offered confirmatory biopsy within 1 year of imaging. The primary outcome was the impact of magnetic resonance imaging on identifying patients who were reclassified by confirmatory biopsy as no longer fulfilling active surveillance criteria. We further identified clinical parameters associated with reclassification. The cohort was stratified as patients with 1) normal magnetic resonance imaging, 2) cancer on magnetic resonance imaging concordant with initial biopsy (less than 1 cm) and 3) cancer on magnetic resonance imaging larger than 1 cm. We performed univariate analysis to assess differences in clinical parameters among the groups. RESULTS: Magnetic resonance imaging did not detect cancer in 23 cases (38%) while magnetic resonance imaging and initial biopsy were concordant in 24 (40%). Magnetic resonance imaging detected a 1 cm or larger lesion in 13 patients (22%). Of the cases 18 (32.14%) were reclassified. When no cancer was identified on magnetic resonance imaging, only 2 cases (3.5%) were reclassified. The positive and negative predictive values for magnetic resonance imaging predicting reclassification were 83% (95% CI 73-93) and 81% (95% CI 71-91), respectively. Prostate specific antigen density was increased in patients with lesions larger than 1 cm on magnetic resonance imaging compared to those with no cancer on imaging (median 0.15 vs 0.07 ng/ml/cc, p=0.016). CONCLUSIONS: Magnetic resonance imaging appears to have a high yield for predicting reclassification among men who elect active surveillance. Upon confirmation of our results magnetic resonance imaging may be used to better select and guide patients before active surveillance.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.280 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations167
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of UrologySame topicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207