MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2919143784 · doi:10.1117/12.2509795

Comparison of breast tumor diameter by intraoperative photoacoustic screening, magnetic resonance imaging and pathology

2019· article· en· W2919143784 on OpenAlexaff
Ivan Kosik, Muriel Brackstone, Anat Kornecki, Astrid Chamson-Reig, Philip Wong, Morteza Araghi, Jeff Carson

Bibliographic record

VenuePhotons Plus Ultrasound: Imaging and Sensing 2019 · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPhotoacoustic and Ultrasonic Imaging
Canadian institutionsLawson Health Research InstituteWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMagnetic resonance imagingPhotoacoustic imaging in biomedicineBreast cancerMedicineRadiologySurgical pathologyBreast imagingBreast tumorCancerMammographyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Due to its superior molecular sensitivity, surgical management of breast cancer now often includes preoperative dynamic contrast enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI). Nevertheless, statistics indicate that, in practice, tumor size is frequently misestimated leading to incomplete resections, and consequently, repeat surgeries. Our group developed a surgical specimen assessment technique, called intraoperative photoacoustic screening (iPAS), based on photoacoustic tomography and with the capability to visualize whole breast tumors. The system was deployed at a breast surgical center and used to scan freshly excised breast tissue specimens belonging to 12 patients. This report compares breast cancer imaging performance by iPAS to that of DCE-MRI, and pathology.

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)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.215 · 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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhotons Plus Ultrasound: Imaging and Sensing 2019Same topicPhotoacoustic and Ultrasonic ImagingFrench-language works237,207