MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2079787590 · doi:10.1258/ar.2011.110445

Detection and size of pulmonary lesions: how accurate is MRI? A prospective comparison of CT and MRI

2012· article· en· W2079787590 on OpenAlexaff
Tobias Heye, Sebastian Ley, Claus Peter Heußel, Hendrik Dienemann, Hans‐Ulrich Kauczor, Waldemar Hosch, M. Libicher

Bibliographic record

VenueActa Radiologica · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLung Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsWomen's College HospitalUniversity Health NetworkMount Sinai Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRadiologyLesionLungNuclear medicineMalignancyMagnetic resonance imagingPathologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Although CT is the modality of choice for morphological lung imaging, an increasing proportion of chest imaging is performed by MRI due to the utilization of whole-body MRI. Therefore, the diagnostic performance of MRI in reliably detecting pulmonary lesions should be established. PURPOSE: To investigate the detection rate of pulmonary lesions by MRI that can be expected in a clinical setting and to assess the accuracy of lesion measurement by MRI compared to CT. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Twenty-eight patients (median age 66 years) with indication for CT imaging due to suspected thoracic malignancy were prospectively included. Chest MRI performed on the same day as CT, comprised unenhanced TrueFisp, ecg-gated T2-weighted HASTE, T1-weighted VIBE, and contrast-enhanced T1-weighted, fat-saturated VIBE sequences. MR sequences were evaluated for lesion detection by two readers independently and measurement of lesion size was performed. MR findings were correlated with CT. RESULTS: One hundred and eight pulmonary lesions (20 thoracic malignancies, 88 lung nodules) were detected by CT in 26 patients. Lesions were ruled out in two patients. All thoracic malignancies were identified by MRI with strong correlation (r = 0.97-0.99; P < 0.01) in lesion size measurement compared to CT. Unenhanced, T1-weighted VIBE correctly classified 94% of thoracic malignancies into T-stages. Contrast-enhanced, T1-weighted VIBE performed best in identifying 36% of lung nodules, 40% were detected combining unenhanced and contrast-enhanced T1-weighted VIBE. Detection rate increased to 65% for the combined sequences regarding lesions ≥5 mm. Lesion size measurement by all MR sequences strongly correlated with CT (r = 0.96-0.97; P = 0.01). CONCLUSION: MRI is as accurate as CT in detection and size measurement of primary thoracic malignancies >1 cm in diameter. If a lung lesion is detected by MRI, it is a reliable finding and its measurement is accurate. CT remains superior in detecting small lung nodules (<6 mm). Detection rate of MRI for small lesions is improved using a multi-sequence protocol including contrast administration.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.284

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.279 · 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 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

Citations53
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueActa RadiologicaSame topicLung Cancer Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207