Relevance of two manual tumour volume estimation methods for diffuse low‐grade gliomas
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it