Computer‐assisted Curie scoring for metaiodobenzylguanidine (MIBG) scans in patients with neuroblastoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Radiolabeled metaiodobenzylguanidine (MIBG) is sensitive and specific for detecting neuroblastoma. The extent of MIBG-avid disease is assessed using Curie scores. Although Curie scoring is prognostic in patients with high-risk neuroblastoma, there is no standardized method to assess the response of specific sites of disease over time. The goal of this study was to develop approaches for Curie scoring to facilitate the calculation of scores and comparison of specific sites on serial scans. PROCEDURE: We designed three semiautomated methods for determining Curie scores, each with increasing degrees of computer assistance. Method A was based on visual assessment and tallying of MIBG-avid lesions. For method B, scores were tabulated from a schematic that associated anatomic regions to MIBG-positive lesions. For method C, an anatomic mesh was used to mark MIBG-positive lesions with automatic assignment and tallying of scores. Five imaging physicians experienced in MIBG interpretation scored 38 scans using each method, and the feasibility and utility of the methods were assessed using surveys. RESULTS: There was good reliability between methods and observers. The user-interface methods required 57 to 110 seconds longer than the visual method. Imaging physicians indicated that it was useful that methods B and C enabled tracking of lesions. Imaging physicians preferred method B to method C because of its efficiency. CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrate the feasibility of semiautomated approaches for Curie score calculation. Although more time was needed for strategies B and C, the ability to track and document individual MIBG-positive lesions over time is a strength of these methods.
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 | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".