Accuracy of Unenhanced MR Imaging in the Detection of Axillary Lymph Node Metastasis: Study of Reproducibility and Reliability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To investigate the accuracy, reproducibility, and reliability of unenhanced magnetic resonance (MR) imaging techniques for detecting metastatic axillary lymph nodes in patients with newly diagnosed breast carcinoma. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Institutional review board approval and informed consent were obtained. Seventy-four consecutive women with invasive breast carcinoma were recruited to undergo preoperative breast MR imaging. Thirteen patients were excluded, two because they were undergoing preoperative chemotherapy and 11 because of the presence of movement or susceptibility artifacts on images. Thus, 61 patients (mean age, 53 years; range, 33-78 years) were included in this study. Axial T1-weighted MR images without fat saturation and diffusion-weighted (DW) MR images were analyzed by two experienced radiologists, who were blinded to the histopathologic findings. Visual and quantitative analyses of unenhanced MR images were performed. Sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were calculated. To assess the intraobserver agreement, a second reading was performed. Statistical analysis was conducted on a patient-by-affected side basis. RESULTS: The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were 88%, 82%, and 85%, respectively, for axial T1-weighted MR imaging and 84%, 77%, and 80% for DW imaging. Apparent diffusion coefficients (ADCs) were significantly lower in the malignant group (P<.05 for all four readings), with the average of the four readings ranging from 0.333×10(-3) mm2/sec to 2.843×10(-3) mm2/sec. The mean Lin coefficient comparing the mean ADC reading for each observer was 0.959 (95% confidence interval: 0.935, 0.975), suggesting very high interobserver agreement between the two observers in terms of reproducibility of ADCs. The Bland-Altman plot showed good inter- and intraobserver agreement. CONCLUSION: Unenhanced MR imaging techniques showed high accuracy in the preoperative evaluation of axillary status in patients with invasive breast cancer. Results indicate reliable and reproducible assessment with DW imaging, but it is unlikely to be useful in clinical practice.
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 | 0.023 | 0.080 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".