MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3016483492 · doi:10.1148/radiol.2020190646

Variability of the Positive Predictive Value of PI-RADS for Prostate MRI across 26 Centers: Experience of the Society of Abdominal Radiology Prostate Cancer Disease-focused Panel

2020· article· en· W3016483492 on OpenAlexaff
Antonio C. Westphalen, Charles E. McCulloch, Jordan Anaokar, Sandeep Arora, Nimrod Barashi, Jelle O. Barentsz, Tharakeswara Bathala, Leonardo Kayat Bittencourt, Michael T. Booker, Vaughn G. Braxton, Peter R. Carroll, David D. Casalino, Silvia D. Chang, Fergus V. Coakley, Ravjot Dhatt, Steven C. Eberhardt, Bryan R. Foster, Adam T. Froemming, Jurgen J. Fütterer, Dhakshina Moorthy Ganeshan, Mark R. Gertner, Lori Mankowski Gettle, Sangeet Ghai, Rajan T. Gupta, Michael E. Hahn, Roozbeh Houshyar, Candice Kim, Chan Kyo Kim, Chandana Lall, Daniel Margolis, Stephen E. McRae, Aytekin Oto, Rosaleen B. Parsons, Nayana Patel, Peter A. Pinto, Thomas J. Polascik, Benjamin Spilseth, Juliana Starcevich, Varaha S. Tammisetti, Samir S. Taneja, Barış Türkbey, Sadhna Verma, John F. Ward, Christopher A. Warlick, A. Weinberger, Jinxing Yu, Ronald J. Zagoria, Andrew B. Rosenkrantz

Bibliographic record

VenueRadiology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsWomen's College HospitalMount Sinai HospitalUniversity Health NetworkUniversity of British Columbia
FundersClinical and Translational Science Institute, University of California, San FranciscoDepartment of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California, San FranciscoNational Center for Advancing Translational Sciences
KeywordsMedicineProstateProstate cancerRadiologyPredictive valueDiseaseMultiparametric MRICancerValue (mathematics)Internal medicineStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Prostate MRI is used widely in clinical care for guiding tissue sampling, active surveillance, and staging. The Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) helps provide a standardized probabilistic approach for identifying clinically significant prostate cancer. Despite widespread use, the variability in performance of prostate MRI across practices remains unknown. Purpose To estimate the positive predictive value (PPV) of PI-RADS for the detection of high-grade prostate cancer across imaging centers. Materials and Methods This retrospective cross-sectional study was compliant with the HIPAA. Twenty-six centers with members in the Society of Abdominal Radiology Prostate Cancer Disease-focused Panel submitted data from men with suspected or biopsy-proven untreated prostate cancer. MRI scans were obtained between January 2015 and April 2018. This was followed with targeted biopsy. Only men with at least one MRI lesion assigned a PI-RADS score of 2–5 were included. Outcome was prostate cancer with Gleason score (GS) greater than or equal to 3+4 (International Society of Urological Pathology grade group ≥2). A mixed-model logistic regression with institution and individuals as random effects was used to estimate overall PPVs. The variability of observed PPV of PI-RADS across imaging centers was described by using the median and interquartile range. Results The authors evaluated 3449 men (mean age, 65 years ± 8 [standard deviation]) with 5082 lesions. Biopsy results showed 1698 cancers with GS greater than or equal to 3+4 (International Society of Urological Pathology grade group ≥2) in 2082 men. Across all centers, the estimated PPV was 35% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 27%, 43%) for a PI-RADS score greater than or equal to 3 and 49% (95% CI: 40%, 58%) for a PI-RADS score greater than or equal to 4. The interquartile ranges of PPV at these same PI-RADS score thresholds were 27%–44% and 27%–48%, respectively. Conclusion The positive predictive value of the Prostate Imaging and Reporting Data System was low and varied widely across centers. © RSNA, 2020 Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Milot in this issue.

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)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.036
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.087

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.036
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.273 · 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

Citations411
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRadiologySame topicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207