MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2791551248 · doi:10.1117/12.2293341

Development of a computer aided diagnosis model for prostate cancer classification on multi-parametric MRI

2018· article· en· W2791551248 on OpenAlexaff
Ryan Alfano, Derek Soetemans, Glenn Bauman, Eli Gibson, Mena Gaed, Madeleine Moussa, Jose A. Gomez-Lemus, Joseph L. Chin, Stephen Pautler, Aaron D. Ward

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Imaging 2018: Computer-Aided Diagnosis · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsRobarts Clinical TrialsLawson Health Research Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProstate cancerRandom forestComputer-aided diagnosisGrading (engineering)Support vector machineClassifier (UML)CADFeature selectionArtificial intelligenceMedicineProstateBiopsyComputer scienceCancerRadiologyPattern recognition (psychology)Internal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Multi-parametric MRI (mp-MRI) is becoming a standard in contemporary prostate cancer screening and diagnosis, and has shown to aid physicians in cancer detection. It offers many advantages over traditional systematic biopsy, which has shown to have very high clinical false-negative rates of up to 23% at all stages of the disease. However beneficial, mp-MRI is relatively complex to interpret and suffers from inter-observer variability in lesion localization and grading. Computer-aided diagnosis (CAD) systems have been developed as a solution as they have the power to perform deterministic quantitative image analysis. We measured the accuracy of such a system validated using accurately co-registered whole-mount digitized histology. We trained a logistic linear classifier (LOGLC), support vector machine (SVC), k-nearest neighbour (KNN) and random forest classifier (RFC) in a four part ROI based experiment against: 1) cancer vs. non-cancer, 2) high-grade (Gleason score ≥4+3) vs. low-grade cancer (Gleason score <4+3), 3) high-grade vs. other tissue components and 4) high-grade vs. benign tissue by selecting the classifier with the highest AUC using 1-10 features from forward feature selection. The CAD model was able to classify malignant vs. benign tissue and detect high-grade cancer with high accuracy. Once fully validated, this work will form the basis for a tool that enhances the radiologist’s ability to detect malignancies, potentially improving biopsy guidance, treatment selection, and focal therapy for prostate cancer patients, maximizing the potential for cure and increasing quality of life.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.876
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.282 · 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.

Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical Imaging 2018: Computer-Aided DiagnosisSame topicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207