FIRST-PASS PERFUSION COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To differentiate recurrent tumors from radiation effects and necrosis in patients with irradiated brain tumors using perfusion computed tomographic (PCT) imaging. METHODS: Twenty-two patients with previously treated brain tumors who showed recurrent or progressive enhancing lesions on follow-up magnetic resonance imaging scans and had a histopathological diagnosis underwent first-pass PCT imaging (26 PCT imaging examinations). Another eight patients with treatment-naïve, high-grade tumors (control group) also underwent PCT assessment. Perfusion maps of cerebral blood volume, cerebral blood flow, and mean transit time were generated at an Advantage Windows workstation using the CT perfusion 3.0 software (General Electric Medical Systems, Milwaukee, WI). Normalized ratios (normalized to normal white matter) of these perfusion parameters (normalized cerebral blood volume [nCBV], normalized cerebral blood flow [nCBF], and normalized mean transit time [nMTT]) were used for final analysis. RESULTS: Fourteen patients were diagnosed with recurrent tumor, and eight patients had radiation necrosis. There was a statistically significant difference between the two groups, with the recurrent tumor group showing higher mean nCBV (2.65 versus 1.10) and nCBF (2.73 versus 1.08) and shorter nMTT (0.71 versus 1.58) compared with the radiation necrosis group. For nCBV, a cutoff point of 1.65 was found to have a sensitivity of 83.3% and a specificity of 100% to diagnose recurrent tumor and radiation necrosis. Similar sensitivity and specificity were 94.4 and 87.5%, respectively, for nCBF with a cutoff point of 1.28 and 94.4 and 75%, respectively, for nMTT with a cutoff point of 1.44 to diagnose recurrent tumor and radiation necrosis. CONCLUSION: PCT may aid in differentiating recurrent tumors from radiation necrosis on the basis of various perfusion parameters. Recurrent tumors show higher nCBV and nCBF and lower nMTT compared with radiation necrosis.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".