MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2048319318 · doi:10.1097/mou.0000000000000160

In-bore MRI interventions

2015· review· en· W2048319318 on OpenAlexaff
Sangeet Ghai, John Trachtenberg

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Opinion in Urology · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity Health NetworkUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineProstate cancerRadiologyMultiparametric MRIUltrasoundFocused ultrasoundMagnetic resonance imagingAblationBiopsyMedical physicsCancerInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This review discusses the feasibility, recent advances and current status of in-bore MRI-guided interventional techniques for diagnosis and treatment of focal prostate cancer (PCa) and also explores the future applications, highlighting the emerging strategies for the treatment of PCa. RECENT FINDINGS: Multiparametric MRI has opened up opportunities for diagnosis and targeted therapeutics to the site of disease within the organ wherein minimizing the incidence of treatment-related toxicity of whole gland therapy. MRI-guided targeted biopsy has a higher detection rate for significant cancer and lower rate of detection of insignificant cancer. In comparison to ultrasound-guided focal therapy, in-bore treatment provides the advantage of real time thermal monitoring during treatment and assessment of treatment coverage by an enhanced scan immediately post-treatment. Preliminary results of ongoing phase I and II in-bore focal PCa treatment trials via transperineal, transrectal and transurethral routes, using different energy modalities for the ablation, have shown promising results. SUMMARY: Advances in multiparametric-MRI has opened up opportunities for in-bore targeted focal treatment of PCa in the correctly selected patient.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.940
Threshold uncertainty score0.962

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.260
GPT teacher head0.507
Teacher spread0.247 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations11
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Opinion in UrologySame topicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207