Utility of T2-weighted MRI texture analysis in assessment of peripheral zone prostate cancer aggressiveness: a single-arm, multicenter study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract T 2 -weighted (T 2 W) MRI provides high spatial resolution and tissue-specific contrast, but it is predominantly used for qualitative evaluation of prostate anatomy and anomalies. This retrospective multicenter study evaluated the potential of T 2 W image-derived textural features for quantitative assessment of peripheral zone prostate cancer (PCa) aggressiveness. A standardized preoperative multiparametric MRI was performed on 87 PCa patients across 6 institutions. T 2 W intensity and apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) histogram, and T 2 W textural features were computed from tumor volumes annotated based on whole-mount histology. Spearman correlations were used to evaluate association between textural features and PCa grade groups (i.e. 1–5). Feature utility in differentiating and classifying low-(grade group 1) vs. intermediate/high-(grade group ≥ 2) aggressive cancers was evaluated using Mann–Whitney U-tests, and a support vector machine classifier employing “hold-one-institution-out” cross-validation scheme, respectively. Textural features indicating image homogeneity and disorder/complexity correlated significantly ( p < 0.05) with PCa grade groups. In the intermediate/high-aggressive cancers, textural homogeneity and disorder/complexity were significantly lower and higher, respectively, compared to the low-aggressive cancers. The mean classification accuracy across the centers was highest for the combined ADC and T 2 W intensity-textural features (84%) compared to ADC histogram (75%), T 2 W histogram (72%), T 2 W textural (72%) features alone or T 2 W histogram and texture (77%), T 2 W and ADC histogram (79%) combined. Texture analysis of T 2 W images provides quantitative information or features that are associated with peripheral zone PCa aggressiveness and can augment their classification.
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 | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".