MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2474852070 · doi:10.1118/1.4958011

WE‐H‐207A‐06: Hypoxia Quantification in Static PET Images: The Signal in the Noise

2016· article· en· W2474852070 on OpenAlexaff
H. Keller, R. Kueng, Tina Shek, Brandon Driscoll, Ivan Yeung, Michael Milosevic, David A. Jaffray

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMedical Imaging Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVoxelNuclear medicinePet imagingHypoxia (environmental)Tumor hypoxiaPositron emission tomographyMedical imagingBiomedical engineeringMedicineRadiologyChemistryRadiation therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose: Quantification of hypoxia from PET images is of considerable clinical interest. In the absence of dynamic PET imaging the hypoxic fraction (HF) of a tumor has to be estimated from voxel values of activity concentration of a radioactive hypoxia tracer. This work is part of an effort to standardize quantification of tumor hypoxic fraction from PET images. Methods: A simple hypoxia imaging model in the tumor was developed. The distribution of the tracer activity was described as the sum of two different probability distributions, one for the normoxic (and necrotic), the other for the hypoxic voxels. The widths of the distributions arise due to variability of the transport, tumor tissue inhomogeneity, tracer binding kinetics, and due to PET image noise. Quantification of HF was performed for various levels of variability using two different methodologies: a) classification thresholds between normoxic and hypoxic voxels based on a non‐hypoxic surrogate (muscle), and b) estimation of the (posterior) probability distributions based on maximizing likelihood optimization that does not require a surrogate. Data from the hypoxia imaging model and from 27 cervical cancer patients enrolled in a FAZA PET study were analyzed. Results: In the model, where the true value of HF is known, thresholds usually underestimate the value for large variability. For the patients, a significant uncertainty of the HF values (an average intra‐patient range of 17%) was caused by spatial non‐uniformity of image noise which is a hallmark of all PET images. Maximum likelihood estimation (MLE) is able to directly optimize for the weights of both distributions, however, may suffer from poor optimization convergence. For some patients, MLE‐based HF values showed significant differences to threshold‐based HF‐values. Conclusion: HF‐values depend critically on the magnitude of the different sources of tracer uptake variability. A measure of confidence should also be reported.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.294 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical Physics→Same topicMedical Imaging Techniques and Applications→French-language works237,207→