MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3002793355 · doi:10.1177/0846537119888388

Diagnostic Imaging Modalities to Assess Treatment Response of Bone Metastasis in Patients Receiving Palliative Radiotherapy: A Scoping Review of the Literature

2020· review· en· W3002793355 on OpenAlexaff
Wasif Bala, Nicholas Chiu, Mary Jiayi Tao, Henry Lam, Edward Chow, Linda Probyn

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Association of Radiologists Journal · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicManagement of metastatic bone disease
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreUniversity of TorontoSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMagnetic resonance imagingRadiation therapyPalliative careRadiologyModalitiesMEDLINEPositron emission tomographyMedical physicsMeta-analysisNuclear medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: Several studies have used objective radiologic data to assess the effect of palliative radiotherapy on tumor burden. The purpose of this literature review was to survey the various metrics that have been used to quantify bone tumor response to palliative radiotherapy by radiographical means and to determine whether any of these metrics were associated with clinical palliative outcomes. METHODS: In accordance with PRISMA extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines, a literature search Ovid Medline and OldMedline from 1946 to February 6, 2019, Embase Classic/Embase from 1947 to 2019 week 5, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials February 2019 to extract articles related to quantified radiologic evaluation of bone metastases following palliative radiotherapy. Imaging modality, quantification metric, and association between imaging modality and clinical response were recorded. RESULTS: Fourteen articles selected for full-text review utilized computed tomography (10 studies), fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography (3 studies), magnetic resonance imaging (1 study), diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (3 studies), and X-ray (1 study) imaging modalities. Variables assessed included tumor volume regression, bone density, metabolic activity, and signal intensity. Studies differed both in the type of imaging modality used and metric derived to quantify the radiologic findings. Fifty percent of the included studies aimed to identify a relationship between a quantified radiologic metric and clinical palliative response. Of these studies, 86% reported a correlation. CONCLUSION: Quantified radiologic metrics can provide an objective measure of response to palliative radiotherapy and may be useful in predicting clinical palliative response. More studies are needed to validate these metrics and develop a standardized protocol for radiologic evaluation that can be implemented into a clinical workflow.

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.075
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.067

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.075
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.006
Bibliometrics0.0190.015
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0030.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.310 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations5
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Association of Radiologists JournalSame topicManagement of metastatic bone diseaseFrench-language works237,207