MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2889063844 · doi:10.1002/mp.13155

Prostate lesion delineation from multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging based on locality alignment discriminant analysis

2018· article· en· W2889063844 on OpenAlexaff
Mingquan Lin, Weifu Chen, Mingbo Zhao, Eli Gibson, Matthew Bastian‐Jordan, Derek W. Cool, Zahra Kassam, Huageng Liang, Tommy W. S. Chow, Aaron D. Ward, Bernard Chiu

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsLawson Health Research InstituteWestern University
FundersCity University of Hong Kong
KeywordsArtificial intelligenceLinear discriminant analysisComputer sciencePattern recognition (psychology)SegmentationPixelDynamic contrastMagnetic resonance imagingMedical imagingMedicineComputer visionNuclear medicineRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: Multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) has shown promise in the detection and localization of prostate cancer foci. Although techniques have been previously introduced to delineate lesions from mpMRI, these techniques were evaluated in datasets with T2 maps available. The generation of T2 map is not included in the clinical prostate mpMRI consensus guidelines; the acquisition of which requires repeated T2-weighted (T2W) scans and would significantly lengthen the scan time currently required for the clinically recommended acquisition protocol, which includes T2W, diffusion-weighted (DW), and dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) imaging. The goal of this study is to develop and evaluate an algorithm that provides pixel-accurate lesion delineation from images acquired based on the clinical protocol. METHODS: Twenty-five pixel-based features were extracted from the T2-weighted (T2W), apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC), and dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) images. The pixel-wise classification was performed on the reduced space generated by locality alignment discriminant analysis (LADA), a version of linear discriminant analysis (LDA) localized to patches in the feature space. Postprocessing procedures, including the removal of isolated points identified and filling of holes inside detected regions, were performed to improve delineation accuracy. The segmentation result was evaluated against the lesions manually delineated by four expert observers according to the Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) detection guideline. RESULTS: The LADA-based classifier (60 ± 11%) achieved a higher sensitivity than the LDA-based classifier (51 ± 10%), thereby demonstrating, for the first time, that higher classification performance was attained on the reduced space generated by LADA than by LDA. Further sensitivity improvement (75 ± 14%) was obtained after postprocessing, approaching the sensitivities attained by previous mpMRI lesion delineation studies in which nonclinical T2 maps were available. CONCLUSION: The proposed algorithm delineated lesions accurately and efficiently from images acquired following the clinical protocol. The development of this framework may potentially accelerate the clinical uses of mpMRI in prostate cancer diagnosis and treatment planning.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.283 · 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 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

Citations10
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical PhysicsSame topicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207