Evaluation of semi‐quantitative scoring system for metaiodobenzylguanidine (mIBG) scans in patients with relapsed neuroblastoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to determine the accuracy of two semi-quantitative scoring systems to assess response to (131)I-metaiodobenzylguanidine (mIBG) therapy in recurrent neuroblastoma. PROCEDURES: Diagnostic mIBG scan pairs (n = 57) were collected for patients who underwent (131)I-mIBG therapy for relapsed neuroblastoma. Two scoring systems were designated: Method 1, which divided the body into nine segments to view osteomedullary lesions with an additional tenth segment to assess soft tissue involvement; and Method 2, which divided the body into seven segments without a corresponding compartment for soft tissue involvement. Four nuclear medicine physicians independently assigned extension and intensity scores utilizing both methods, and separately recorded their impression of whether the post-therapy scan had improved, not changed, or worsened. Inter- and intra-observer concordance and correlation with overall response and progression-free survival (PFS) were performed. RESULTS: Method 1 produced the highest inter-observer concordance and was used to calculate the relative extension scores (post-therapy score divided by pre-therapy score), which correlated significantly with overall response. Patients who achieved complete response (CR) or partial response (PR) (n = 21) had lower relative extension scores, compared to those without response (P < 0.001). The readers' overall impression associated highly (P < 0.001) with the relative extension scores though results were less quantitative. Concordance was higher if initial scores were >5. Relative extension score did not predict PFS. CONCLUSION: Semi-quantitative scoring of mIBG scans provides a more reliable method of assessing response in patients with relapsed neuroblastoma than qualitative impression. The reproducibility and high inter-observer concordance makes mIBG score an important component of overall response criteria in patients with recurrent neuroblastoma.
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 | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".