MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2312872952 · doi:10.1097/mnm.0b013e3283606669

Evaluation of a new visual uptake scoring scale for 18F-fluorothymidine positron emission tomography in the diagnosis of pulmonary lesions

2013· article· en· W2312872952 on OpenAlexaff
Jean‐Mathieu Beauregard, Anne‐Laure Giraudet, Nicolas Aide, Michael S. Hofman, Robert Blum, Elizabeth Drummond, Peter Roselt, Rodney J. Hicks

Bibliographic record

VenueNuclear Medicine Communications · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMedical Imaging Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
FundersPeter MacCallum Cancer Centre
KeywordsMedicineLesionPositron emission tomographyNuclear medicineMalignancyBiopsyReceiver operating characteristicRadiologyStandardized uptake valueFluorodeoxyglucoseBone marrowPathologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: The aim of this analysis was to evaluate a new visual scoring scale developed to facilitate the qualitative appraisal of lesion uptake on (18)F-fluorothymidine PET ((18)F-FLT-PET). METHODS: Sixty-two patients with a pulmonary lesion of unknown aetiology who had undergone an F-fluorodeoxyglucose-PET/computed tomography (CT) suspicious for malignancy prospectively underwent an (18)F-FLT-PET/CT. Three nuclear medicine physicians independently reviewed each (18)F-FLT-PET/CT scan with knowledge of the location of the pulmonary lesion but blinded to the final diagnosis. They scored the lesion (18)F-FLT uptake as follows: (0) no visible uptake; (1) <spleen; (2) ≥ spleen, but <both liver and marrow; (3) between liver and marrow; (4) >liver and >marrow. Lesion mean (SUV(mean)) and maximum (SUV(max)) standardized uptake values were measured in a separate session. RESULTS: In all, 35 lesions were malignant and 27 were benign, as assessed on the basis of surgery, biopsy or follow-up of at least 12 months. Visual score, SUV(mean) and SUV(max) were statistically different between benign and malignant lesions. The visual scoring scale showed substantial to almost-perfect interobserver agreement with a weighted κ value of 0.84, 0.67 and 0.65 for each observer pair. The visual score was highly correlated to SUV(mean) and SUV(max) (r=0.83 and 0.87, respectively) and described a logarithmic pattern in relation to SUV(mean) and SUV(max) (r =0.67 and 0.72, respectively). The area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve for the visual score was 0.86 and was statistically different from that for SUV(mean) (0.77; P=0.026) and SUV(max) (0.79; P=0.047). CONCLUSION: The (18)F-FLT scoring scale we propose is easy to use with high interobserver agreement and a significantly better discriminative capacity compared with SUV measurements. It has the potential to harmonize the qualitative interpretation of (18)F-FLT-PET/CT in lung cancer diagnosis.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.551
Threshold uncertainty score0.339

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.114
GPT teacher head0.402
Teacher spread0.288 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations6
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNuclear Medicine CommunicationsSame topicMedical Imaging Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207