Relevance of two manual tumour volume estimation methods for diffuse low‐grade gliomas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Management of diffuse low-grade glioma (DLGG) relies extensively on tumour volume estimation from MRI datasets. Two methods are currently clinically used to define this volume: the commonly used three-diameters solution and the more rarely used software-based volume reconstruction from the manual segmentations approach. The authors conducted an initial study of inter-practitioners' variability of software-based manual segmentations on DLGGs MRI datasets. A panel of 13 experts from various specialties and years of experience delineated 12 DLGGs' MRI scans. A statistical analysis on the segmented tumour volumes and pixels indicated that the individual practitioner, the years of experience and the specialty seem to have no significant impact on the segmentation of DLGGs. This is an interesting result as it had not yet been demonstrated and as it encourages cross-disciplinary collaboration. Their second study was with the three-diameters method, investigating its impact and that of the software-based volume reconstruction from manual segmentations method on tumour volume. They relied on the same dataset and on a participant from the first study. They compared the average of tumour volumes acquired by software reconstruction from manual segmentations method with tumour volumes obtained with the three-diameters method. The authors found that there is no statistically significant difference between the volumes estimated with the two approaches. These results correspond to non-operated and easily delineable DLGGs and are particularly interesting for time-consuming CUBE MRIs. Nonetheless, the three-diameters method has limitations in estimating tumour volumes for resected DLGGs, for which case the software-based manual segmentation method becomes more appropriate.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.024 | 0.115 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".