Assessment of metastatic lymph nodes in head and neck squamous cell carcinomas using simultaneous 18F-FDG-PET and MRI
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 (ve, vp, PS, Fp, Ktrans), DWI (ADC) and PET (Ki, K1, k2, k3) 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 vp, Fp, PS, and Ktrans values of the metastatic lymph nodes were significantly lower (p = <0.05) than those of normal nodes. ve and ADC did not show any statistical significance. For the dynamic PET parameters, the metastatic nodes had significantly higher k3 (p value = 8.8 × 10−8) and Ki (p value = 5.3 × 10−8) than normal nodes. K1 and k2 did not show any statistically significant difference. Ki had the best separation with accuracy = 0.96 (sensitivity = 1, specificity = 0.95) using a cutoff of Ki = 5.3 × 10−3 mL/cm3/min, while k3 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 Ki < 5.3 × 10−3 mL/cm3/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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".