MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2118709987 · doi:10.7863/jum.2004.23.2.173

Diagnosing Breast Lesions With Contrast-Enhanced 3-Dimensional Power Doppler Imaging

2004· article· en· W2118709987 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Ultrasound in Medicine · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBreast Lesions and Carcinomas
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMedical Research and Materiel CommandNational Cancer Institute
KeywordsMedicineMammographyPower dopplerBreast imagingRadiologyReceiver operating characteristicBreast cancerContrast (vision)BiopsyNuclear medicineColor dopplerMedical imagingUltrasoundCancerUltrasonographyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To compare mammography with contrast-enhanced 2- and 3-dimensional power Doppler imaging for the diagnosis of breast cancer. METHODS: Fifty-five patients, who underwent breast biopsies with histopathologic assessment, participated in a study of mammography and contrast-enhanced sonography. Levovist (Berlex Laboratories, Montville, NJ) and Optison (Mallinckrodt, St Louis, MO) were administrated to 22 and 33 patients, respectively. Precontrast and postcontrast 2-dimensional power Doppler data of the lesion were obtained with an HDI 3000 system (Philips Medical Systems, Bothell, WA), and 3-dimensional data were acquired with an LIS 6000A system (Life Imaging Systems Inc, London, Ontario, Canada). Two independent and blinded readers assessed diagnosis. Receiver operating characteristic curves were computed individually and in combination for mammography and 2- and 3-dimensional sonography (before and after contrast). Histopathologic and imaging parameters were compared by Mann-Whitney statistics. RESULTS: Mammographic findings were available for 50 patients, biopsy for 54, and 2- and 3-dimensional sonographic images for 53 and 52, respectively. Of the 50 patients who had all 4 measures, 15 (30%) had malignancies. The areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve for the diagnosis of breast cancer were 0.51 for 2-dimensional contrast-enhanced imaging, 0.60 for 3-dimensional power Doppler imaging, and 0.76 for 3-dimensional contrast-enhanced imaging (P < .01). Mammography produced an area of 0.86, which increased when combined with 3-dimensional contrast-enhanced imaging to 0.90 and with all sonographic modalities to 0.96 (P < .001). The histopathologic diagnosis of benign or malignant correlated with the presence or absence of anastomoses and with the degree of vascularity assessed with contrast-enhanced 3-dimensional power Doppler imaging (P = .007 and .02). CONCLUSIONS: Contrast-enhanced 3-dimensional power Doppler imaging increases the ability to diagnose breast cancer relative to conventional 2- and 3-dimensional sonographic imaging.

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.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.770
Threshold uncertainty score0.625

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.250 · 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