MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2065582284 · doi:10.1200/jco.2006.06.6159

New Technologies and Directed Agents for Applications of Cancer Imaging

2006· review· en· W2065582284 on OpenAlexaff
Mostafa Atri

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2006
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCancer, Hypoxia, and Metabolism
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreUniversity of TorontoSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMolecular imagingMagnetic resonance imagingMedicinePositron emission tomographyFunctional imagingPreclinical imagingModality (human–computer interaction)Medical imagingRadiologyIn vivoComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Molecular imaging represents tissue-specific imaging and quantification of physiologic (functional) and molecular events in tumors utilizing new noninvasive imaging modalities, radioligands, and contrast agents. It combines anatomic, physiologic, and metabolic information in a single imaging session. Molecular imaging relies on the ability to target genes and proteins that are linked directly or indirectly to human disease. New imaging biomarkers are being developed. In addition, functional and molecular imaging can potentially replace anatomic longitudinal studies by assessing treatment response earlier. Vascular targeting agents can be evaluated by imaging of tumor angiogenesis using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), computed tomography and ultrasound, and positron emission tomography (PET). Targeted contrast agents can accomplish site-directed imaging or therapy by a variety of active and passive mechanisms. Furthermore, there is the possibility of combining different modalities such as ultrasonic imaging and MRI or MRI and PET to increase the flexibility unachievable with either modality alone. However, there is a need to standardize these techniques so that longitudinal evaluation of tumor response to treatment is feasible.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.958
Threshold uncertainty score0.572

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.091
GPT teacher head0.495
Teacher spread0.404 · 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

Citations101
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicCancer, Hypoxia, and MetabolismFrench-language works237,207