MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2332149583 · doi:10.3174/ajnr.a4006

Preoperative Prognostic Value of Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced MRI-Derived Contrast Transfer Coefficient and Plasma Volume in Patients with Cerebral Gliomas

2014· article· en· W2332149583 on OpenAlexafffund
Thanh Nguyen, Greg O. Cron, J. F. Mercier, Claire Foottit, César Torres, Santanu Chakraborty, John Woulfe, Gerard H. Jansen, J. Caudrelier, John Sinclair, Mark Hogan, Rebecca E. Thornhill, I Cameron

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Neuroradiology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMRI in cancer diagnosis
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalUniversity of OttawaUniversité du Québec en Outaouais
FundersBayer HealthCareBrain Tumour Foundation of CanadaEMD SeronoOttawa Hospital Research Institute
KeywordsMedicineContrast (vision)Magnetic resonance imagingNuclear medicineGliomaValue (mathematics)Plasma volumeVolume (thermodynamics)RadiologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The prognostic value of dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging-derived plasma volume obtained in tumor and the contrast transfer coefficient has not been well-established in patients with gliomas. We determined whether plasma volume and contrast transfer coefficient in tumor correlated with survival in patients with gliomas in addition to other factors such as age, type of surgery, preoperative Karnofsky score, contrast enhancement, and histopathologic grade. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This prospective study included 46 patients with a new pathologically confirmed diagnosis of glioma. The contrast transfer coefficient and plasma volume obtained in tumor maps were calculated directly from the signal-intensity curve without T1 measurements, and values were obtained from multiple small ROIs placed within tumors. Survival curve analysis was performed by dichotomizing patients into groups of high and low contrast transfer coefficient and plasma volume. Univariate analysis was performed by using dynamic contrast-enhanced parameters and clinical factors. Factors that were significant on univariate analysis were entered into multivariate analysis. RESULTS: For all patients with gliomas, survival was worse for groups of patients with high contrast transfer coefficient and plasma volume obtained in tumor (P < .05). In subgroups of high- and low-grade gliomas, survival was worse for groups of patients with high contrast transfer coefficient and plasma volume obtained in tumor (P < .05). Univariate analysis showed that factors associated with lower survival were age older than 50 years, low Karnofsky score, biopsy-only versus resection, marked contrast enhancement versus no/mild enhancement, high contrast transfer coefficient, and high plasma volume obtained in tumor (P < .05). In multivariate analysis, a low Karnofsky score, biopsy versus resection in combination with marked contrast enhancement, and a high contrast transfer coefficient were associated with lower survival rates (P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with glioma, those with a high contrast transfer coefficient have lower survival than those with low parameters.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.725

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.218 · 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

Citations50
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of NeuroradiologySame topicMRI in cancer diagnosisFrench-language works237,207