Standardized acquisition and post-processing of dynamic susceptibility contrast perfusion in patients with brain tumors, cerebrovascular disease and dementia: comparability of post-processing software
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: MR-perfusion post-processing still lacks standardization. This study evaluates the results of perfusion analysis with two established software solutions in a large series of patients with different diseases when a highly standardized processing workflow is ensured. Methods: Multicenter data of 260 patients (80 with brain tumors, 124 with cerebrovascular disease and 56 with dementia examined with the same MR protocol) were analyzed. Raw data sets were processed with two software suites: Olea sphere and NordicICE. Group differences were analyzed with paired t-tests and one-way ANOVA. Results: Perfusion metrics were significantly different for all examined diseases in the unaffected brain for both software suites [ratio cortex/white matter left hemisphere: mean transit time (MTT) 0.991 vs 0.847, p < 0.05; relative cerebral bloodflow (rBF) 3.23 vs 4.418, p < 0.001; relative cerebral bloodvolume (rBVc) 2.813 vs 3.884, p < 0.001; right hemisphere: MTT 1.079 vs 0.854, p < 0.05; rBF 3.262 vs 4.378, p < 0.001; rBVc 2.762 vs 3.935, p < 0.001)]. Perfusion results were also significantly different in patients with stroke (ratio cortex/white matter affected hemisphere: MTT 1.058 vs 0.784; p < 0.001), dementia (ratio cortex/white matter left hemisphere: rBVc 1.152 vs 1.795, p < 0.001; right hemisphere: rBVc 1.396 vs 1.662, p < 0.05) and brain tumors (ratio cortex/whole tumor rBVc: 0.778 vs 0.919, p < 0.001 and ratio cortex/tumor hotspot rBVc: 0.529 vs 0.512, p < 0.05). Conclusion: Despite a highly standardized workflow, parametric perfusion maps are depended on the chosen software. Radiologists should consider software related variances when using dynamic susceptibility contrast perfusion for clinical imaging and research. Advances in knowledge: This multicenter study compared perfusion parameters calculated by two commercial dynamic susceptibility contrast perfusion post-processing software solutions in different central nervous system disorders with a large sample size and a highly standardized processing workflow. Despite, parametric perfusion maps are depended on the chosen software which impacts clinical imaging and research.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".