Bayesian pharmacokinetic modeling of dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging: validation and application
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tracer-kinetic analysis of dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging data is commonly performed with the well-known Tofts model and nonlinear least squares (NLLS) regression. This approach yields point estimates of model parameters, uncertainty of these estimates can be assessed e.g. by an additional bootstrapping analysis. Here, we present a Bayesian probabilistic modeling approach for tracer-kinetic analysis with a Tofts model, which yields posterior probability distributions of perfusion parameters and therefore promises a robust and information-enriched alternative based on a framework of probability distributions. In this manuscript, we use the quantitative imaging biomarkers alliance (QIBA) Tofts phantom to evaluate the Bayesian tofts model (BTM) against a bootstrapped NLLS approach. Furthermore, we demonstrate how Bayesian posterior probability distributions can be employed to assess treatment response in a breast cancer DCE-MRI dataset using Cohen's d. Accuracy and precision of the BTM posterior distributions were validated and found to be in good agreement with the NLLS approaches, and assessment of therapy response with respect to uncertainty in parameter estimates was found to be excellent. In conclusion, the Bayesian modeling approach provides an elegant means to determine uncertainty via posterior distributions within a single step and provides honest information about changes in parameter estimates.
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 | 0.008 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".