MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3109359120 · doi:10.1038/s41598-020-77740-5

Assessment of metastatic lymph nodes in head and neck squamous cell carcinomas using simultaneous 18F-FDG-PET and MRI

2020· article· en· W3109359120 on OpenAlex
Jenny Chen, Mari Hagiwara, Babak Givi, Brian L. Schmidt, Liu C, Qi Chen, Jean Logan, Artem Mikheev, Henry Rusinek, Sungheon Kim

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Reports · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone and Joint Diseases
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute on AgingNational Cancer InstituteNational Institutes of HealthSchool of Medicine, New York UniversityNational Institute of Biomedical Imaging and BioengineeringYork UniversityCenter for Advanced Imaging Innovation and Research
KeywordsMedicineLymphLymph nodeHead and neck squamous-cell carcinomaPositron emission tomographyMagnetic resonance imagingNuclear medicineDiffusion MRIStandardized uptake valueNeck dissectionRadiologyMetastasisHead and neck cancerPathologyCarcinomaCancerRadiation therapyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In this study, we investigate the feasibility of using dynamic contrast enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI), diffusion weighted imaging (DWI), and dynamic positron emission tomography (PET) for detection of metastatic lymph nodes in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) cases. Twenty HNSCC patients scheduled for lymph node dissection underwent DCE-MRI, dynamic PET, and DWI using a PET-MR scanner within one week prior to their planned surgery. During surgery, resected nodes were labeled to identify their nodal levels and sent for routine clinical pathology evaluation. Quantitative parameters of metastatic and normal nodes were calculated from DCE-MRI (v e , v p , PS, F p , K trans ), DWI (ADC) and PET (K i , K 1 , k 2 , k 3 ) to assess if an individual or a combination of parameters can classify normal and metastatic lymph nodes accurately. There were 38 normal and 11 metastatic nodes covered by all three imaging methods and confirmed by pathology. 34% of all normal nodes had volumes greater than or equal to the smallest metastatic node while 4 normal nodes had SUV > 4.5. Among the MRI parameters, the median v p , F p , PS, and K trans values of the metastatic lymph nodes were significantly lower ( p = <0.05) than those of normal nodes. v e and ADC did not show any statistical significance. For the dynamic PET parameters, the metastatic nodes had significantly higher k 3 ( p value = 8.8 × 10 −8 ) and K i ( p value = 5.3 × 10 −8 ) than normal nodes. K 1 and k 2 did not show any statistically significant difference. K i had the best separation with accuracy = 0.96 (sensitivity = 1, specificity = 0.95) using a cutoff of K i = 5.3 × 10 −3 mL/cm 3 /min, while k 3 and volume had accuracy of 0.94 (sensitivity = 0.82, specificity = 0.97) and 0.90 (sensitivity = 0.64, specificity = 0.97) respectively. 100% accuracy can be achieved using a multivariate logistic regression model of MRI parameters after thresholding the data with K i < 5.3 × 10 −3 mL/cm 3 /min. The results of this preliminary study suggest that quantitative MRI may provide additional value in distinguishing metastatic nodes, particularly among small nodes, when used together with FDG-PET.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.290
Threshold uncertainty score0.493

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.272 · 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