MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3094475348 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2020-039735

Histopathological features of prostate cancer conspicuity on multiparametric MRI: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

2020· review· en· W3094475348 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Joseph M. Norris, Lina M. Carmona Echeverria, Benjamin S. Simpson, Rhys Ball, Alex Freeman, Daniel Kelly, Alex Kirkham, Hayley C. Whitaker, Mark Emberton

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUrology FoundationRosetrees TrustProstate Cancer UKAstellas PharmaPancreatic Cancer UKNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchMedical Research CouncilSanofi
KeywordsMedicineProstate cancerChecklistSystematic reviewProtocol (science)MEDLINEMeta-analysisMedical physicsProstateInclusion and exclusion criteriaCancerRadiologyPathologyInternal medicineAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) has improved risk stratification for men with suspected prostate cancer. Indeed, mpMRI-visible tumours tend to be larger and of higher pathological grade than mpMRI-invisible tumours; however, concern remains around significant cancer that is undetected by mpMRI. There has been considerable recent interest to investigate whether tumour conspicuity on mpMRI is associated with additional histopathological features (including cellular density, microvessel density and unusual prostate cancer subtypes), which may have important clinical implications in both diagnosis and prognosis. Furthermore, analysis of these features may help reveal the radiobiology that underpins the actual mechanisms of mpMRI visibility (and invisibility) of prostate tumours. Here, we describe a protocol for a systematic review of the histopathological basis of prostate cancer conspicuity on mpMRI. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A systematic search of the MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase and Cochrane databases will be conducted. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines will be used to guide screening, thematic reporting and conclusions drawn from all eligible studies. Included papers will be full-text, English-language articles, comparing the histopathological characteristics of mpMRI-visible lesions and mpMRI-invisible tumours. All studies published between January 1950 and January 2020 will be eligible for inclusion. Studies using confirmatory immunohistochemistry for the identification of immune subsets or structural components will be included. Study bias and quality will be assessed using a modified Newcastle-Ottawa scale. To ensure methodological rigour, this protocol is written in accordance with the PRISMA Protocol 2015 checklist. If appropriate, a meta-analysis will be conducted comparing histopathological feature frequency between mpMRI-visible and mpMRI-invisible disease. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: No ethical approval will be required as this is an academic review of published literature. Findings will be disseminated through publications in peer-reviewed journals and presentations at national and international conferences. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020176049.

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)0.074
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.112
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: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.074
Threshold uncertainty score0.393

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0740.112
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0060.005
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0230.028
Bibliometrics0.0120.012
Science and technology studies0.0030.004
Scholarly communication0.0070.007
Open science0.0060.005
Research integrity0.0070.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0550.006

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 head0.366
GPT teacher head0.547
Teacher spread0.180 · 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
GenreProtocol

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

Citations3
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ Open→Same topicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment→French-language works237,207→