Improvement in breast lesion characterization with dynamic contrast‐enhanced MRI using pharmacokinetic modeling and bookend <i>T</i><sub>1</sub> measurements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dynamic contrast-enhanced breast MR imaging was performed on 14 patients (five cancerous lesions, nine benign) with slice-selective spoiled gradient-recalled echo (2D SPGR) imaging. Adiabatic saturation recovery T(1) measurements were performed before (T(1pre)) and after (T(1post)) 2D SPGR imaging. These two "bookend" T(1) measurements were used to calibrate the equations which were employed to convert the time course of the 2D SPGR signal strength to T(1)-vs.-time, which in turn was used to compute the gadolinium concentration-vs.-time ([C](t)) in the lesion. The extraction-flow product (EF) was computed for each lesion by pharmacokinetic modeling of [C](t). For this study, EF provided a sensitivity and specificity for cancer of 100% and 78%, respectively. When only T(1pre) was used to estimate [C](t) (which assumes a priori knowledge of the shape and amplitude of the slice profile), the sensitivity and specificity fell to 80% and 56%, respectively. This is presumably due to unexpected variations in the shape and/or amplitude of the slice profile, which could be caused by factors such as patient-to-patient variations in breast geometry or inconsistently set transmit gains. Therefore, both T(1pre) and T(1post) measurements are necessary for optimum sensitivity and specificity using pharmacokinetic analysis.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".