Normalized Apparent Diffusion Coefficient in the Prognostication of Patients with Glioblastoma Multiforme
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) is known to have poor prognosis, with no available imaging marker that can predict survival at the time of diagnosis. Diffusion weighted images are used in characterisation of cellularity and necrosis of GBM. The purpose of this study was to assess whether pattern or degree of diffusion restriction could help in the prognostication of patients with GBM. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed 84 consecutive patients with confirmed GBM on biopsy or resection. The study was approved by the institutional ethics committee. The total volume of the tumor and total volume of tumor showing restricted diffusion were calculated. The lowest Apparent Diffusion Coefficient (ADC) in the region of the tumor and in the contralateral Normal Appearing White Matter were calculated in order to calculate the nADC. Treatment and follow-up data in these patients were recorded. Multivariate analsysis was completed to determine significant correlations between different variables and the survival of these patients. RESULTS: Patient survival was significantly related to the age of the patient (p<0.0001; 95% CI-1.022-1.043) and the nADC value (p=0.014; 95% CI-0.269-0.860) in the tumor. The correlation coefficients of age and nADC with survival were -0.335 (p=0.002) and 0.390 (p<0.001), respectively. Kaplan Meier survival function, grouped by normalized Apparent Diffusion Coefficient cut off value of 0.75, was significant (p=0.007). CONCLUSION: The survival of patients with GBM had small, but significant, correlations with the patient's age and nADC within the tumor.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".