MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2078950767 · doi:10.1117/12.2043729

Identifying MRI markers to evaluate early treatment-related changes post-laser ablation for cancer pain management

2014· article· en· W2078950767 on OpenAlexaff
Pallavi Tiwari, Shabbar F. Danish, Anant Madabhushi

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAdvanced MRI Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
FundersNational Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney DiseasesNational Cancer Institute
KeywordsMagnetic resonance imagingMedicineAblationReal-time MRIRadiologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Laser interstitial thermal therapy (LITT) has recently emerged as a new treatment modality for cancer pain management that targets the cingulum (pain center in the brain), and has shown promise over radio-frequency (RF) based ablation which is reported to provide temporary relief. One of the major advantages enjoyed by LITT is its compatibility with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), allowing for high resolution in vivo imaging to be used in LITT procedures. Since laser ablation for pain management is currently exploratory and is only performed at a few centers worldwide, its short-, and long-term effects on the cingulum are currently unknown. Traditionally treatment effects are evaluated by monitoring changes in volume of the ablation zone post-treatment. However, this is sub-optimal since it involves evaluating a single global parameter (volume) to detect changes pre-, and post-MRI. Additionally, the qualitative observations of LITT-related changes on multi-parametric MRI (MP-MRI) do not specifically address differentiation between the appearance of treatment related changes (edema, necrosis) from recurrence of the disease (pain recurrence). In this work, we explore the utility of computer extracted texture descriptors on MP-MRI to capture early treatment related changes on a per-voxel basis by extracting quantitative relationships that may allow for an in-depth understanding of tissue response to LITT on MRI, subtle changes that may not be appreciable on original MR intensities. The second objective of this work is to investigate the efficacy of different MRI protocols in accurately capturing treatment related changes within and outside the ablation zone post-LITT. A retrospective cohort of studies comprising pre- and 24-hour post-LITT 3 Tesla T1-weighted (T1w), T2w, T2-GRE, and T2-FLAIR acquisitions was considered. Our scheme involved (1) inter-protocol as well as inter-acquisition affine registration of pre- and post-LITT MRI, (2) quantitation of MRI parameters by correcting for intensity drift in order to examine tissue-specific response, and (3) quantification of MRI maps via texture and intensity features to evaluate changes in MR markers pre- and post-LITT. A total of 78 texture features comprising of non-steerable and steerable gradient and second order statistical features were extracted from pre- and post-LITT MP-MRI on a per-voxel basis. Quantitative, voxel-wise comparison of the changes in MRI texture features between pre-, and post-LITT MRI indicate that (a) steerable and non-steerable gradient texture features were highly sensitive as well as specific in predicting subtle micro-architectural changes within and around the ablation zone pre- and post-LITT, (b) FLAIR was identified as the most sensitive MRI protocol in identifying early treatment changes yielding a normalized percentage change of 360% within the ablation zone relative to its pre-LITT value, and (c) GRE was identified as the most sensitive MRI protocol in quantifying changes outside the ablation zone post-LITT. Our preliminary results thus indicate great potential for non-invasive computerized MRI features in determining localized micro-architectural focal treatment related changes post-LITT.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.272 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations6
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIESame topicAdvanced MRI Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207