Prospective comparative diagnostic accuracy evaluation of dynamic contrast‐enhanced (DCE) vs. dynamic susceptibility contrast (DSC) MR perfusion in differentiating tumor recurrence from radiation necrosis in treated high‐grade gliomas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The appearance of a new enhancing lesion after surgery and chemoradiation for high-grade glioma (HGG) presents a common diagnostic dilemma. Histopathological analysis remains the reference standard in this situation. PURPOSE: To prospectively compare the diagnostic accuracy of dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) vs. dynamic susceptibility contrast (DSC) in differentiating tumor recurrence (TR) from radiation necrosis (RN). STUDY TYPE: Prospective diagnostic accuracy study. POPULATION: In all, 98 consecutive treated HGG patients with new enhancing lesion. We excluded 32 patients due to inadequate follow-up or technical limitation. FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE: 3 T DCE and DSC MR. ASSESSMENT: , area under the curve (AUC), and plasma volume (Vp). The reference standard of TR and/or RN was determined by histopathology in 43 surgically resected lesions or by clinical/imaging follow-up in the rest. STATISTICAL TESTS: Mann-Whitney U-tests, receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve, and logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: A total of 68 lesions were included. There were 37 TR, 28 RN, and three lesions with equal proportions of TR and RN. TR had significantly higher CBV, corrected CBV, CBV ratio, corrected CBV ratio, AUC ratio, and Vp ratio (P < 0.05) than RN on hot-spot analysis. CBV had the highest diagnostic accuracy (AUROC 0.71). On histogram analysis, TR had higher CBV and corrected CBV maximal value compared with RN (P = 0.006, AUROC = 0.70). Only CBV on hot-spot analysis remained significant after correction for multiple comparison, with no significant improvement in diagnostic accuracy when using a combination of parameters (AUROC 0.71 vs. 0.76, P = 0.24). DATA CONCLUSION: . Clinical practice may be best guided by blood volume measurements, rather than permeability assessment for differentiation of TR from RN. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 1 Technical Efficacy Stage: 4 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2019;50:573-582.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".