MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2906546386 · doi:10.1002/jmri.26594

Intraductal carcinoma of the prostate (IDC‐P) lowers apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values among intermediate risk prostate cancers

2018· article· en· W2906546386 on OpenAlexaff
Stephen Currin, Trevor A. Flood, Satheesh Krishna, Matthew D. F. McInnes, Nicola Schieda

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health NetworkOttawa Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEffective diffusion coefficientProstate cancerProstateProstatectomyUrologyCarcinomaNuclear medicinePopulationDiffusion MRICancerMagnetic resonance imagingPathologyRadiologyInternal medicine

Abstract

Background Prostatic intraductal carcinoma (IDC‐P) is an aggressive variant of prostate cancer (PCa) characterized by proliferation of malignant cells within prostatic ducts/acini and nucleomegaly. Purpose/Hypothesis To compare apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values and Prostate Imaging and Data Reporting System (PI‐RADS) v. 2 scores in intermediate risk (International Society of Urological Pathology [ISUP] Grade Group [GG] 2 and 3) PCa with/without IDC‐P to determine if IDC‐P alters the MRI appearance of PCa. Study Type Retrospective, case–control. Population Fifteen consecutive men with ISUP GG 2/3 (Gleason score 3+4 = 7 [ N = 4], 4+3 = 7 [ N = 11]) PCa with IDC‐P diagnosed at radical prostatectomy were compared with: 1) ISUP GG 2/3 PCa without IDC‐P (matched for percentage Gleason pattern 4), and 2) ISUP GG 4 and 5 (Gleason score 8/9) PCa without IDC‐P. Field Strength/Sequence 3T multiparametric MRI. Assessment Two blinded radiologists (R1/R2) measured mean ADC, ADC.ratio (ADC.tumor/ADC.normal peripheral zone) and assigned PI‐RADS v2 scores. Statistical Tests: Chi‐square and analysis of variance (ANOVA). Results There were no differences in age, prostate serum antigen, tumor size, or stage between groups ( P = 0.063‐0.912). Tumors with IDC‐P had lower mean ADC and ADC.ratio (0.741 ± 0.152 mm 2 /sec and 0.44 ± 0.07) compared with ISUP GG 2/3 tumors without IDC‐P (0.888 ± 0.167 mm 2 /sec and 0.62 ± 0.14), P = 0.012 and <0.001; and did not differ compared with ISUP GG 4/5 tumors (0.705 ± 0.141 mm 2 /sec and 0.44 ± 0.08), P = 0.509 and 0.868. Tumors with IDC‐P were nearly all PI‐RADS v2 score 5 (14/15) compared with ISUP GG 2/3 tumors without IDC‐P (10/15 R1, 8/15 R2) and GG 4/5 tumors (9/15), ( P = 0.040 = 0.092). Agreement in PI‐RADS v2 scoring was moderate (K = 0.68). Data Conclusion ISUP GG 2 and 3 (intermediate risk, Gleason score 7) PCa with IDC‐P have lower ADC compared with tumors without IDC‐P with a similar percentage of Gleason pattern 4 and resemble ISUP GG 4 and 5 high risk tumors on MRI. IDC‐P lowers ADC values among intermediate risk prostate cancers. Level of Evidence : 3 Technical Efficacy Stage : 2 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2019;50:279–287.

Stored with the screening record, where it is evidence for the labels above.

How this classification was reachedexpand

The three-model screen

all 5,600 screened works →

All three models called this out of scope.

stratum: aff_core · design weight: 5595.24 (the sample is stratified; any rate computed without the weight is wrong)
Claude Opus 4.8OUT
genre: empirical
about Canada: no
confidence: high

MRI study of how intraductal carcinoma affects apparent diffusion coefficient values in prostate cancer; a diagnostic imaging question.

GPT-5.6 (high)OUT
genre: empirical
about Canada: no
confidence: high

The study examines MRI features of prostate cancer, not research itself.

Grok 4.5OUT
genre: empirical
about Canada: no
confidence: high

Clinical radiology study of IDC-P and ADC values; prostate cancer domain imaging.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.000

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.234 · 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 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

Citations20
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Magnetic Resonance ImagingSame topicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207