MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2105713473 · doi:10.1148/radiol.13120121

Pilot Study of Quantitative Analysis of Background Enhancement on Breast MR Images: Association with Menstrual Cycle and Mammographic Breast Density

2013· article· en· W2105713473 on OpenAlexaff
Anabel M. Scaranelo, Rachel Fleming, Lindsay M. Jacks, Supriya Kulkarni, Pavel Crystal

Bibliographic record

VenueRadiology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMRI in cancer diagnosis
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health NetworkMount Sinai Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBreast cancerMenstrual cycleBreast MRIMammographyInstitutional review boardBreast imagingMagnetic resonance imagingWilcoxon signed-rank testGynecologyNuclear medicineObstetricsRadiologyCancerInternal medicineMann–Whitney U testSurgeryHormone

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: To perform semiautomated quantitative analysis of the background enhancement (BE) in a cohort of patients with newly diagnosed breast cancer and to correlate it with mammographic breast density and menstrual cycle. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Informed consent was waived after the research ethics board approved this study. Results of 177 consecutive preoperative breast magnetic resonance (MR) examinations performed from February to December 2009 were reviewed; 147 female patients (median age, 48 years; range, 26-86 years) were included. Ordinal values of BE and breast density were described by two independent readers by using the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System lexicon. The BE coefficient (BEC) was calculated thus: (SI2 · 100/SI1) - 100, where SI is signal intensity, SI2 is the SI enhancement measured in the largest anteroposterior dimension in the axial plane 1 minute after the contrast agent injection, and SI1is the SI before contrast agent injection. BEC was used for the quantitative analysis of BE. Menstrual cycle status was based on the last menstrual period. The Wilcoxon rank-sum or Kruskal-Wallis test was used to compare quantitative assessment groups. Cohen weighted κ was used to evaluate agreement. RESULTS: Of 147 patients, 68 (46%) were premenopausal and 79 (54%) were postmenopausal. The quantitative BEC was associated with the menstrual status (BEC in premenopausal women, 31.48 ± 20.68 [standard deviation]; BEC in postmenopausal women, 25.65 ± 16.74; P = .02). The percentage of overall BE was higher when the MR imaging was performed in women in the inadequate phase of the cycle (<35 days, not 7-14 days; mean BEC, 35.7) compared with women in the postmenopausal group (P = .001). Premenopausal women had significantly higher BEC when compared with postmenopausal women (P = .03). There was no significant difference in the percentage of BE between breast density groups. CONCLUSION: Premenopausal women with breast cancer, and specifically women in the inadequate phase of the cycle, presented with higher quantitative BE than postmenopausal women. No association was found between BE and breast density.

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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.533

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.268 · 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

Citations55
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRadiologySame topicMRI in cancer diagnosisFrench-language works237,207