MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2898743105 · doi:10.1259/bjr.20180568

Quantitative assessment of dynamic <sup>18</sup>F-flumethycholine PET and dynamic contrast enhanced MRI in high risk prostate cancer

2018· article· en· W2898743105 on OpenAlexaff
Noam Tau, Alejandro Berlín, Ivan Yeung, Jaydeep Halankar, Grainne Murphy, Kartik Jhaveri, Sangeet Ghai, Ur Metser

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Radiology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreWomen's College HospitalUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health NetworkMount Sinai Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDynamic contrastProstate cancerNuclear medicineMedicineDynamic contrast-enhanced MRIProstateContrast (vision)Risk assessmentCancerMagnetic resonance imagingRadiologyInternal medicineComputer scienceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE:: F-flumethycholine PET (dPET) and dynamic contrast enhancement MR (DCE MR) parameters in localized high-risk prostate cancer (PCa), and determine whether these differ from normal prostate. Furthermore, to determine whether a correlation exists between dPET and DCE MR parameters. METHODS:: 41 consenting patients who underwent prostate DCE MR and dPET were included in this institutionally approved study. Intraprostatic lesions on MR were assigned a PI-RADS v2 score, and focal lesions on PET were documented. All lesions were correlated with pathology. Quantitative and semi-quantitative DCE MR and two-tissue compartmental model dPET parameters were determined and tumor-to-normal gland ratios (T/N) for these parameters were calculated. Finally, dPET and DCE MR correlation was estimated using Spearman correlation coefficients. RESULTS:: There were 46 malignant lesions per standard of reference. On dPET, peripheral zone (PZ) tumors had higher K1 (p < 0.001), and a T/N ratio ≥2 was significant (p < 0.001). On DCE MR, the parameters in, kep, Ktrans and quantitative iAUC were higher for PZ and non-PZ tumors than corresponding normal tissue (p < 0.001); for PZ tumors, a T/N ratio ≥ 1.5 for Ktrans and pei was significant (p = 0.0019 and 0.0026, respectively). Moderate Spearman correlation (0.40 < ρ < 0.59) was found between dPET K1 and DCE MR Ktrans and pei. CONCLUSION:: In patients with high-risk PCa, quantitative dPET and DCE-MR parameters in primary tumors differ from normal tissue. Only moderate correlation exists between K1 (dPET) and Ktrans and pei (DCE MR). The incremental value of any of these parameters to PI-RADS v2 warrants further investigation. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE:: Unique quantitative and semi-quantitative FCH PET/MR parameters in PCa differ from normal gland, and should be further investigated to determine their potential contribution to PI-RADS v2 in the detection of clinically significant PCa.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.332
Threshold uncertainty score0.715

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.319 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of RadiologySame topicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207