Prostate Imaging: Evaluation of a Reusable Two-Channel Endorectal Receiver Coil for MR Imaging at 1.5 T
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To prospectively compare image quality with use of a two-channel solid reusable phased-array endorectal receiver coil (SPAC) with that of the single-channel inflatable endorectal balloon coil currently in widespread use for 1.5-T magnetic resonance (MR) imaging of the prostate. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Institutional review board approval and informed consent were obtained. Multiparametric prostate MR imaging at 1.5 T was performed in patients who were suspected of having cancer. Thirty consecutive patients were included (mean age, 66.1 years; range, 49-76 years). The first 15 patients were imaged by using a balloon coil and an eight-channel external array, and the remaining 15 were imaged with a SPAC alone. One patient was imaged with both techniques. Axial T2-weighted images acquired at both standard and high spatial resolution were used to compare image quality between coils. Qualitative assessments of image quality were made separately by three radiologists. Signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) profiles were determined on a pixel-by-pixel basis in a 1-cm central band in the prostate by using T1-weighted axial images at the apex, midgland, and base. Interrater reliability was determined by using a two-way intraclass correlation coefficient, qualitative scores were compared by using the Student t test for independent samples, and SNR profiles were plotted by using a Biot-Savart curve approximation. RESULTS: SNR of the SPAC was significantly better compared with that of the balloon coil at distances up to 3.0 cm at the apex and 3.5 cm at the base and midgland (P < .001). There was a 7% improvement in SNR at the mean maximal anteroposterior prostate dimension in this cohort and a 96% improvement at half this distance. At both standard and high spatial resolution, significant improvements in overall image quality (P = .015 and P < .001, respectively), visibility of the anterior gland (P = .009 and P < .001, respectively), and noise (P < .001 and P < .001, respectively) were seen when the SPAC was used. Interrater reliability was 0.536 (95% confidence interval: 0.461, 0.603). CONCLUSION: Both SNR and image quality were significantly improved with use of the SPAC at 1.5 T compared with use of the single-channel inflatable endorectal balloon coil.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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".