MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2165207462 · doi:10.3390/cancers7040886

Multiparametric Evaluation of Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma Using a Single-Source Dual-Energy CT with Fast kVp Switching: State of the Art

2015· review· en· W2165207462 on OpenAlexaff
Stéphanie Lam, Rajiv Gupta, Hillary R. Kelly, Hugh D. Curtin, Reza Forghani

Bibliographic record

VenueCancers · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced X-ray and CT Imaging
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityJewish General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHead and neck squamous-cell carcinomaHead and neckMedicineDigital Enhanced Cordless TelecommunicationsHead and neck cancerRadiologyBasal cellComputer sciencePathologyRadiation therapySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There is an increasing body of evidence establishing the advantages of dual-energy CT (DECT) for evaluation of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC). Focusing on a single-source DECT system with fast kVp switching, we will review the principles behind DECT and associated post-processing steps that make this technology especially suitable for HNSCC evaluation and staging. The article will review current applications of DECT for evaluation of HNSCC including use of different reconstructions to improve tumor conspicuity, tumor-normal soft tissue interface, accuracy of invasion of critical structures such as thyroid cartilage, and reduce dental artifact. We will provide a practical approach for DECT implementation into routine clinical use and a multi-parametric approach for scan interpretation based on the experience at our institution. The article will conclude with a brief overview of potential future applications of the technique.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.237 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations63
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancersSame topicAdvanced X-ray and CT ImagingFrench-language works237,207