MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3112979975 · doi:10.1093/neuonc/noaa215.654

NIMG-41. VARIATION IN PERFUSION AND PERMEABILITY MRI DEPENDING ON VASCULAR INPUT FUNCTION SELECTION

2020· article· en· W3112979975 on OpenAlexaff
Parandoush Abbasian, Lawrence Ryner, Jai Shankar, Marco Essig, Marshall Pitz

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuro-Oncology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMRI in cancer diagnosis
Canadian institutionsResearch Institute in Oncology and HematologyHealth Sciences CentreCancerCare Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSSS*MedicineNuclear medicinePerfusionDynamic contrast-enhanced MRIRadiologyMagnetic resonance imagingInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract BACKGROUND According to the updated RANO criteria, MRI contrast enhancement and peritumoral edema during the initial 12 weeks within the radiation field following chemoradiation may be pseudoprogression (PP) or true progression (TP). This ambiguity results in diagnostic uncertainty and delays in effective therapies. MRI perfusion and permeability imaging markers, including relative blood volume (rBV), and volume transfer constant (Ktrans), may be useful in differentiating PP from TP. Both techniques rely on identification of a vascular input function (VIF) to produce reliable output maps. METHODS Perfusion and permeability maps were acquired from 7 patients on a Siemens 3T Verio MRI as part of an ongoing prospective study on glioblastoma multiforme. Patients received standard surgical resection with concurrent chemo-radiotherapy treatment and MRI follow-up at one and every 2 months. Maps were based on the follow-up MRI. The 3D contrast enhancing lesion (CEL) was segmented from the T1-Post-Gd MRI. VIF pixels were identified in the internal carotid artery (ICA), the M2 segment of the middle cerebral artery (MCA2), the superior sagittal sinus (SSS), automatically using software (Olea Sphere 3.0.22), and auto-edited (removed pixels from the auto VIF definition that were outside the brain). RESULTS For the different VIF pixel selections (ICA, MCA2, SSS, Auto, Auto-edited), mean Ktrans values from CEL were 0.32, 0.48, 0.05, 0.09, 0.08, respectively, showing a 10-fold variation. Mean rBV values from CEL were 2.70, 2.36, N/A, 3.10, 3.19, respectively, showing a 1.3-fold variation. CONCLUSIONS VIF pixel selection is a critical step in generating reliable perfusion and permeability MRI maps. Variation of up to a factor of 10 in the Ktrans values, depending on VIF selection, was observed. SSS for the permeability VIF resulted in maps that most closely matched literature values, whereas perfusion imaging showed less sensitivity to VIF selection.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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)0.0020.001

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.265 · 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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeuro-OncologySame topicMRI in cancer diagnosisFrench-language works237,207