MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2177888621 · doi:10.1002/jmri.25090

Diffusional kurtosis imaging for differentiating between high‐grade glioma and primary central nervous system lymphoma

2015· article· en· W2177888621 on OpenAlexaff
Haopeng Pang, Yan Ren, Xuefei Dang, Xiaoyuan Feng, Zhenwei Yao, Jing-song Wu, Chengjun Yao, Nongyu Di, Diana Ghinda, Yong Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlioma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKurtosisPrimary central nervous system lymphomaFractional anisotropyConfidence intervalGliomaMedicineDiffusion MRIMagnetic resonance imagingNuclear medicineRadiologyInternal medicineCentral nervous systemStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to assess the diagnostic accuracy of diffusion kurtosis magnetic resonance imaging parameters for differentiating high-grade gliomas (HGGs) from primary central nervous system lymphomas (PCNSLs). METHODS: Diffusion parameters, including fractional anisotropy (FA), mean diffusivity (MD), axial diffusivity (λ// ), radial diffusivity (λ⊥ ); and kurtosis parameters, including mean kurtosis (MK), axial kurtosis (K// ), and radial kurtosis (K⊥ ), were normalized to contralateral normal-appearing white matter (NAWMc) to decrease inter-individual and inter-regional changes across the entire brain, and then compared with the solid parts of 20 HGGs and 11 PCNSLs [median 95% confidence interval (CI), P < 0.004; 0.05/14], significance level, Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, Bonferroni correction]. RESULTS: FA, MD, λ// , and λ⊥ values were higher in HGGs than in PCNSLs, but not significantly [HGGs: 0.209 (95% CI, 0.134-0.338), 1.385 (95% CI, 1.05-1.710), 1.655 (95% CI, 1.30-2.060), 1.228 (95% CI, 0.932-1.480), respectively; PCNSLs: 0.143 (95% CI, 0.110-0.317), 1.070 (95% CI, 0.842-1.470), 1.260 (95% CI, 0.960-1.930), 1.010 (95% CI, 0.782-1.240)], respectively; P = 0.120, 0.010, 0.004, and 0.004, respectively). However, MK and K// were significantly higher in PCNSLs compared with HGGs [PCNSLs: 0.765 (95% CI, 0.697-0.890), 0.787 (95% CI, 0.615-1.030), respectively; HGGs: 0.531 (95% CI, 0.402-0.766), 0.532 (95% CI, 0.432-0.680], respectively; P = 0.001, 0.000, respectively); but not K⊥ [0.774 (95% CI, 0.681-0.899) for PCNSLs; 0.554 (95% CI, 0.389-0.954) for HGGs; P = 0.024]. CONCLUSION: There were significant differences in kurtosis parameters (MK and K// ) between HGGs and PCNSLs, while differences in diffusion parameters between them did not reach significance; hence, better separation was achieved with these parameters than with conventional diffusion imaging parameters. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2016;44:30-40.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.230 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations27
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Magnetic Resonance ImagingSame topicGlioma Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207