Primary Colorectal Cancer: Use of Kinetic Modeling of Dynamic Contrast-enhanced CT Data to Predict Clinical Outcome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare four different tracer kinetic models for the analysis of dynamic contrast material-enhanced computed tomographic (CT) data with respect to the prediction of 5-year overall survival in primary colorectal cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study was approved by the ethical review board. Archival dynamic contrast-enhanced CT data from 46 patients with colorectal cancer, obtained as part of a research study, were analyzed retrospectively by using the distributed parameter, conventional compartmental, adiabatic tissue homogeneity, and generalized kinetic models. Blood flow, blood volume, mean transit time (MTT), permeability-surface area product, extraction fraction, extravascular extracellular volume (v(e)), and volume transfer constant (K(trans)) were compared by using the Friedman test, with statistical significance at 5%. Following receiver operating characteristic analysis, parameters of the different kinetic models and tumor stage were compared with respect to overall survival discrimination, with use of Kaplan Meier analysis and a univariate Cox proportional hazard model, with additional cross-validation and permutation testing. RESULTS: Blood flow was lower with the distributed parameter model than with the conventional compartmental and adiabatic tissue homogeneity models (P < .0001), and blood flow values determined with the conventional compartmental and adiabatic tissue homogeneity models were similar. Conversely, MTT was longer with the distributed parameter model than with the conventional compartmental and adiabatic tissue homogeneity models (P < .0001). Blood volume, permeability-surface area product, and v(e) were higher with the conventional compartmental model than with the adiabatic tissue homogeneity, distributed parameter, or generalized kinetic models (P < .0001). The extraction fraction was higher with the distributed parameter model than with the adiabatic tissue homogeneity model. With respect to 5-year overall survival, only the distributed parameter model-derived v(e) was predictive of 5-year overall survival with a threshold value of 15.48 mL/100 mL after cross-validation and permutation testing. CONCLUSION: Parameter values differ significantly between models. Of the models investigated, the distributed parameter model was the best predictor of 5-year overall survival. SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL: http://radiology.rsna.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1148/radiol.12120186/-/DC1.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".