Comparing oxygen-sensitive MRI (BOLD R2*) with oxygen electrode measurements: A pilot study in men with prostate cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To explore the relationship between oxygen-sensitive Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) and oxygen measurements in prostate cancer. METHODS: Nine men underwent MRI examinations followed by needle oxygen measurements of tumor bearing region within prostate gland and five men further consented to biopsy. Median pO2 and hypoxic fraction < 5 mm Hg (HP5) were derived. Biopsies were immunostained for Carbonic Anhydrase IX (CA IX), Hypoxia Inducible Factor-1 (HIF 1) and Glucose Transporter-1 (GLUT 1). Corresponding Regions-of-Interest (ROI) were delineated on T2-weighted (T2w) MRI by two observers. Median R2* was calculated for each ROI. Spearman correlation was calculated between R2* and HP5/pO2. RESULTS: MRI quality evaluation resulted in exclusion of 4/18 ROI due to motion (n = 2) and rectal air susceptibility artifact (n = 2). Quality of remaining data was validated by concordance of R2* with T2w, indices and with secondary observer R2* (r = 0.94, p = 0.005). Correlation was observed between R2* and HP5 (r = 0.76, p = 0.02) and a trend was noted between R2* and pO2 (r = -0.66, p = 0.07). GLUT 1 and HIF 1 were expressed in all patients, and CA IX was expressed in one patient with high HP5 (77%) and low pO2 (1.4 mm Hg). CONCLUSIONS: MRI using R2* quantification is a promising tool for non-invasive imaging of prostate cancer hypoxia.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".