Pixel-by-Pixel Comparison of Volume Transfer Constant and Estimates of Cerebral Blood Volume from Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced and Dynamic Susceptibility Contrast-Enhanced MR Imaging in High-Grade Gliomas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Estimates of blood volume and volume transfer constant are parameters commonly used to characterize hemodynamic properties of brain lesions. The purposes of this study were to compare values of volume transfer constant and estimates of blood volume in high-grade gliomas on a pixel-by-pixel basis to comprehend whether they provide different information and to compare estimates of blood volume obtained by dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging and dynamic susceptibility contrast-enhanced MR imaging. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-two patients with biopsy-proved grade IV gliomas underwent dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging and dynamic susceptibility contrast-enhanced MR imaging, and parametric maps of volume transfer constant, plasma volume, and CBV maps were calculated. The Spearman rank correlation coefficients among matching values of CBV, volume transfer constant, and plasma volume were calculated on a pixel-by-pixel basis. Comparison of median values of normalized CBV and plasma volume was performed. RESULTS: Weak-but-significant correlation (P < .001) was noted for all comparisons. Spearman rank correlation coefficients were as follows: volume transfer constant versus CBV, ρ = 0.113; volume transfer constant versus plasma volume, ρ = 0.256; CBV versus plasma volume, ρ = 0.382. We found a statistically significant difference (P < .001) for the estimates of blood volume obtained by using dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging (mean normalized plasma volume, 13.89 ± 11.25) and dynamic susceptibility contrast-enhanced MR imaging (mean normalized CBV, 4.37 ± 4.04). CONCLUSIONS: The finding of a very weak correlation between estimates of microvascular density and volume transfer constant suggests that they provide different information. Estimates of blood volume obtained by using dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging are significantly higher than those obtained by dynamic susceptibility contrast-enhanced MR imaging in human gliomas, most likely due to the effect of contrast leakage.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".