Reducing Unnecessary Prostate Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging by Using Clinical Parameters to Predict Negative and Indeterminate Findings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: We sought to develop a triage strategy to reduce negative and indeterminate multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging scans in patients at risk for prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this retrospective study we evaluated 865 patients with no prior prostate cancer diagnosis who underwent prostate multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging between 2009 and 2017. Age, prostate volume, prostate specific antigen and prostate specific antigen density were assessed as predictors of positive multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging, defined as PI-RADS™ (Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System) version 2/Likert score 4 or greater. The cohort was split into a training cohort of 605 patients and a validation cohort of 260. The optimal threshold to rule out positive multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging was chosen to achieve a negative predictive value greater than 90%. RESULTS: sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were 94%, 29%, 22% and 95%, respectively, resulting in 25% fewer scans (64 of 260). In the multivariate model sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were 85%, 32%, 22% and 91%, respectively, resulting in 29% fewer scans (75 of 260). Biopsies in men who would not have undergone multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging according to our proposed strategies revealed 2 clinically significant prostate cancers using prostate specific antigen density and 1 using the multivariate model. CONCLUSIONS: resulted in 25% to 29% fewer multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging scans performed while missing only a minimal number of clinically significant prostate cancers. Further prospective validation is required.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".