MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Abstract P2-02-10: Evaluation of apparent diffusion coefficient to predict grade, micro-invasion and invasion in DCIS

2013· article· en· W1992487239 on OpenAlexaff
HM Hussein, Catherine T. Chung, Hadas Moshonov, Vivianne Freitas, Naomi Miller, SR Kulkarni, Anabel M. Scaranelo

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Research · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMRI in cancer diagnosis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEffective diffusion coefficientMedicineBreast cancerNuclear medicineDiffusion MRILogistic regressionBiopsyRadiologyCancerMagnetic resonance imagingInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract PURPOSE: To evaluate the role of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values in distinguishing DCIS grades and identifying the presence of micro-invasive/invasive disease. METHODS AND MATERIALS: REB approved study with informed consent obtained from 70 women (age 36-84) scheduled for core-biopsy with results of 71 non-invasive/high-risk breast lesions. All patients underwent surgery and were assessed pre-operatively using diffusion weighted (DWI)-MRI. Lesion size, morphology and ADC values were recorded. The Kruskal Wallis or one-way ANOVA test and Pearson correlation coefficient were used to study the association between ADC values and the analyzed MRI lesion characteristics. Logistic regression analysis was used to evaluate the ability of ADC values to predict the presence of invasion. RESULTS: Of 71 cases, 45.1% were imaged on a 3T magnet and 54.9% on 1.5 T. Final pathology demonstrated invasive cancer in 26.8%, micro-invasion in 18.3% and pure DCIS in 59.2%. On 3T, mean ADC value was 1.20 ×10-3 mm2/s ± 0.48 (SD) (range, 0.47 - 1.78 ×10-3 mm2/s) for non-high grade DCIS, 1.23 × 10-3 mm2/s ± 0.40 (SD) (range, 0.26 - 1.77 ×10-3 mm2/s) for high-grade DCIS, and 1.15 × 10-3 mm2/s ± 0.45 (SD) (range, 0.26 - 1.75 ×10-3 mm2/s) for invasive/microinvasive disease. On 1.5T, mean ADC value was 1.04 × 10-3 mm2/s ± 0.41 (SD) (range, 0.15 - 1.85 ×10-3 mm2/s) for non-high grade DCIS, 1.01 × 10-3 mm2/s ± 0.37 (SD) (range, 0.06 - 1.76 ×10-3 mm2/s) for high-grade DCIS, and 1.11 × 10-3 mm2/s ± 0.30 (SD) (range, 0.64 - 1.76 ×10-3 mm2/s) for invasive/microinvasive disease. Based on logistic regression analysis, mean ADC value was not a significant predictor for invasiveness using 1.5 T [OR = 2.6 (95% CI (0.409, 17.12)), p = 0.3] or 3T [OR = 0.4 (95% CI (0.076, 2.399)), p = 0.3] CONCLUSION: Mean ADC acquired using a 1.5T or 3T MRI was unable to predict high-grade or invasive disease in biopsy-proven DCIS lesions. Further work is exploring voxel-based approaches that may better appreciate tumor heterogeneity and identify sub-regions of tumor with these higher risk features. Citation Information: Cancer Res 2013;73(24 Suppl): Abstract nr P2-02-10.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.184
GPT teacher head0.445
Teacher spread0.260 · 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

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer ResearchSame topicMRI in cancer diagnosisFrench-language works237,207