Using Proton Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopic Imaging to Predict in Vivo the Response of Recurrent Malignant Gliomas to Tamoxifen Chemotherapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Most patients with a malignant glioma spend considerable time on a treatment protocol before their response (or nonresponse) to the therapy can be determined. Because survival time in the absence of effective therapy is short, the ability to predict the potential chemosensitivity of individual brain tumors noninvasively would represent a significant advance in chemotherapy planning. METHODS: Using proton magnetic resonance spectroscopic imaging (1H MRSI), we studied 16 patients with a recurrent malignant glioma before and during treatment with high-dose orally administered tamoxifen. We evaluated whether 1H MRSI data could predict eventual therapeutic response to tamoxifen at the pretreatment and early treatment stages. RESULTS: Seven patients responded to tamoxifen therapy (three with glioblastomas multiforme; four with anaplastic astrocytomas), and nine did not (six with glioblastomas multiforme; three with anaplastic astrocytomas). Responders and nonresponders exhibited no differences in their age, sex, tumor type, mean tumor volume, mean Karnofsky scale score, mean number of weeks postradiotherapy, or mean amount of prior radiation exposure. Resonance profiles across the five metabolites measured on 1H MRSI spectra (choline-containing compounds, creatine and phosphocreatine, N-acetyl groups, lactate, and lipids) differed significantly between these two groups before and during treatment. Furthermore, linear discriminant analyses based on patients' in vivo biochemical information accurately predicted individual response to tamoxifen both before and at very early treatment stages (2 and 4 wk). Similar analyses based on patient sex, age, Karnofsky scale score, tumor type, and tumor volume could not reliably predict the response to tamoxifen treatment at the same time periods. CONCLUSION: It is possible to accurately predict the response of a tumor to tamoxifen on the basis of noninvasively acquired in vivo biochemical information. 1H MRSI has potential as a prognostic tool in the pharmacological treatment of recurrent malignant gliomas.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".