MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2510781654 · doi:10.2967/jnumed.116.179192

<sup>68</sup>Ga-DOTATATE PET/CT Interobserver Agreement for Neuroendocrine Tumor Assessment: Results of a Prospective Study on 50 Patients

2016· article· en· W2510781654 on OpenAlexaff
Wolfgang P. Fendler, Martin Barrio, Claudio Spick, Martin Allen-Auerbach, Valentina Ambrosini, Matthias Benz, Christina Bluemel, Ravinder K. Grewal, Constantin Lapa, Matthias Miederer, Guillaume Nicolas, Tibor Schuster, Johannes Czernin, Ken Herrmann

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Nuclear Medicine · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeuroendocrine Tumor Research Advances
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNational Cancer Institute
KeywordsNuclear medicineMedicineIntraclass correlationConfidence intervalNeuroendocrine tumorsPositron emission tomographyRadiologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We evaluated observer agreement for 68Ga-DOTATATE PET/CT interpretations in patients with neuroendocrine tumor (NET). Methods:68Ga-DOTATATE PET/CT was performed on 50 patients with known or suspected NET of the small bowel (n = 19), pancreas (n = 14), lung (n = 4), or other location (n = 13). The images were reviewed by 7 observers, who used a standardized interpretation approach. The observers were classified as having a low level of experience (<500 scans or <5 y experience with 68Ga-DOTATATE PET/CT; n = 4) or a high level of experience (≥500 scans or ≥5 y experience with 68Ga-DOTATATE PET/CT; n = 3). Interpretation by the primary nuclear medicine physician, who had access to all clinical and imaging data, served as the reference standard. Interobserver agreement was determined by the Cohen κ statistic and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) with corresponding 95% confidence interval (95%CI). Results: Interobserver agreement was substantial, and the median number of false findings was low for the overall scan result: that is, positive versus negative scan result (κ = 0.80; 95%CI, 0.74–0.86; false findings, 3), organ involvement (κ = 0.70; 95%CI, 0.64–0.76; false findings, 5), and lymph node involvement (κ = 0.71; 95%CI, 0.65–0.78; false findings, 6). Interobserver agreement was substantial to almost perfect, and the average absolute difference (Δ) from the reference observer was low for number of organ and lymph node metastases (organ: ICC, 0.84; 95%CI, 0.77–0.89; Δ = 0.45; lymph node: ICC, 0.77; 95%CI, 0.69–0.84; Δ = 0.45), tumor SUVmax (ICC, 0.99; 95%CI, 0.97–0.99; Δ = 0.44), and reference SUV (spleen: ICC, 0.81; Δ = 1.10; liver: ICC, 0.79; Δ = 0.62). Interpretations of appropriateness for peptide-receptor radionuclide therapy varied more significantly among observers (κ = 0.64; 95%CI, 0.57–0.70), and a higher frequency of false-positive recommendations for peptide-receptor radionuclide therapy occurred in observers with low experience than in those with high experience (range, 7–12 vs. 4–8). Conclusion: The interpretation of 68Ga-DOTATATE PET/CT images for NET staging is consistent among observers with low and high levels of experience. However, image-based recommendations for or against peptide-receptor radionuclide therapy require experience and training.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.321 · 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

Citations35
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Nuclear MedicineSame topicNeuroendocrine Tumor Research AdvancesFrench-language works237,207