MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2120165921 · doi:10.3174/ajnr.a3012

Diagnostic Accuracy of Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced MR Imaging Using a Phase-Derived Vascular Input Function in the Preoperative Grading of Gliomas

2012· article· en· W2120165921 on OpenAlexafffund
Thanh Nguyen, Greg O. Cron, J. F. Mercier, Claire Foottit, Carlos Torres, Santanu Chakraborty, John Woulfe, Gerard H. Jansen, Jean-Michel Caudrelier, John Sinclair, R. Edward Hogan, Rebecca E. Thornhill, I Cameron

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Neuroradiology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlioma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaOttawa Hospital
FundersBrain Tumour Foundation of Canada
KeywordsMedicineGliomaNuclear medicineGrading (engineering)Diagnostic accuracyMagnetic resonance imagingRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The accuracy of tumor plasma volume and K(trans) estimates obtained with DCE MR imaging may have inaccuracies introduced by a poor estimation of the VIF. In this study, we evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of a novel technique by using a phase-derived VIF and "bookend" T1 measurements in the preoperative grading of patients with suspected gliomas. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This prospective study included 46 patients with a new pathologically confirmed diagnosis of glioma. Both magnitude and phase images were acquired during DCE MR imaging for estimates of K(trans)_φ and V(p_)φ (calculated from a phase-derived VIF and bookend T1 measurements) as well as K(trans)_SI and V(p_)SI (calculated from a magnitude-derived VIF without T1 measurements). RESULTS: Median K(trans)_φ values were 0.0041 minutes(-1) (95 CI, 0.00062-0.033), 0.031 minutes(-1) (0.011-0.150), and 0.088 minutes(-1) (0.069-0.110) for grade II, III, and IV gliomas, respectively (P ≤ .05 for each). Median V(p_)φ values were 0.64 mL/100 g (0.06-1.40), 0.98 mL/100 g (0.34-2.20), and 2.16 mL/100 g (1.8-3.1) with P = .15 between grade II and III gliomas and P = .015 between grade III and IV gliomas. In differentiating low-grade from high-grade gliomas, AUCs for K(trans)_φ, V(p_φ), K(trans)_SI, and V(p_)SI were 0.87 (0.73-1), 0.84 (0.69-0.98), 0.81 (0.59-1), and 0.84 (0.66-0.91). The differences between the AUCs were not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: K(trans)_φ and V(p_)φ are parameters that can help in differentiating low-grade from high-grade gliomas.

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)0.007
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.295 · 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

Citations38
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of NeuroradiologySame topicGlioma Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207