MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2513800940 · doi:10.3174/ajnr.a4908

Correlation of Tumor Immunohistochemistry with Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced and DSC-MRI Parameters in Patients with Gliomas

2016· article· en· W2513800940 on OpenAlexaff
Thanh Nguyen, Greg O. Cron, Kathryn Bezzina, Kirstin Perdrizet, Carlos Torres, Santanu Chakraborty, John Woulfe, Gerard H. Jansen, Rebecca E. Thornhill, Brandon Zanette, I Cameron

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Neuroradiology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMRI in cancer diagnosis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoOttawa HospitalUniversity of Ottawa
FundersBayer HealthCare
KeywordsMedicineGliomaNuclear medicineMagnetic resonance imagingDynamic contrastPathologyDynamic contrast-enhanced MRICorrelationBlood volumeImmunohistochemistryCerebral blood volumeContrast (vision)Nuclear magnetic resonanceRadiologyInternal medicinePhysicsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<h3>BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE:</h3> Tumor CBV is a prognostic and predictive marker for patients with gliomas. Tumor CBV can be measured noninvasively with different MR imaging techniques; however, it is not clear which of these techniques most closely reflects histologically-measured tumor CBV. Our aim was to investigate the correlations between dynamic contrast-enhanced and DSC-MR imaging parameters and immunohistochemistry in patients with gliomas. <h3>MATERIALS AND METHODS:</h3> Forty-three patients with a new diagnosis of glioma underwent a preoperative MR imaging examination with dynamic contrast-enhanced and DSC sequences. Unnormalized and normalized cerebral blood volume was obtained from DSC MR imaging. Two sets of plasma volume and volume transfer constant maps were obtained from dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging. Plasma volume obtained from the phase-derived vascular input function and bookend T1 mapping (Vp_Φ) and volume transfer constant obtained from phase-derived vascular input function and bookend T1 mapping (<i>K</i><sup>trans</sup>_Φ) were determined. Plasma volume obtained from magnitude-derived vascular input function (Vp_SI) and volume transfer constant obtained from magnitude-derived vascular input function (<i>K</i><sup>trans</sup>_SI) were acquired, without T1 mapping. Using CD34 staining, we measured microvessel density and microvessel area within 3 representative areas of the resected tumor specimen. The Mann-Whitney <i>U</i> test was used to test for differences according to grade and degree of enhancement. The Spearman correlation was performed to determine the relationship between dynamic contrast-enhanced and DSC parameters and histopathologic measurements. <h3>RESULTS:</h3> Microvessel area, microvessel density, dynamic contrast-enhanced, and DSC-MR imaging parameters varied according to the grade and degree of enhancement (<i>P</i> &lt; .05). A strong correlation was found between microvessel area and Vp_Φ and between microvessel area and unnormalized blood volume (<i>r</i><sub>s</sub> ≥ 0.61). A moderate correlation was found between microvessel area and normalized blood volume, microvessel area and Vp_SI, microvessel area and <i>K</i><sup>trans</sup>_Φ, microvessel area and <i>K</i><sup>trans</sup>_SI, microvessel density and Vp_Φ, microvessel density and unnormalized blood volume, and microvessel density and normalized blood volume (0.44 ≤ <i>r</i><sub>s</sub> ≤ 0.57). A weaker correlation was found between microvessel density and <i>K</i><sup>trans</sup>_Φ and between microvessel density and <i>K</i><sup>trans</sup>_SI (<i>r</i><sub>s</sub> ≤ 0.41). <h3>CONCLUSIONS:</h3> With dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging, use of a phase-derived vascular input function and bookend T1 mapping improves the correlation between immunohistochemistry and plasma volume, but not between immunohistochemistry and the volume transfer constant. With DSC-MR imaging, normalization of tumor CBV could decrease the correlation with microvessel area.

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 score0.042
Threshold uncertainty score0.313

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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.227 · 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

Citations27
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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