Qualitative Assessment of Advanced MRI in Post-Treatment High Grade Gliomas Follow Up: Do We Agree?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: MRI is commonly used in follow up of high grade glioma. Our purpose is to assess the interrater agreement on the increasingly used visual qualitative assessment of various conventional and advanced MR techniques in the setting of treated high grade glioma in comparison to the well established quantitative measurements. METHODS: We prospectively enrolled HGG patients who underwent reresection of a new enhancing lesion on post-treatment 3T MR examination including DWI, DCE and DSC sequences. Two neuroradiologists objectively assessed the diffusion and perfusion maps by placing ROI on representative post-processed maps. They subjectively assessed the post-contrast, perfusion and diffusion sequences. Interrater agreement and concordance correlation coefficient were calculated. RESULTS: Twenty-eight lesions were included. The interrater agreement on the qualitative assessment was good for k-trans (k = 0.73), moderate for Vp (k = 0.52), fair for AUC and Ve maps (k = 0.37 and 0.21), fair for corrected CBV (k = 0.39) and poor for the enhancement pattern and presence of diffusion restriction (k = 0.02 and 0.07). The concordance between the quantitative measurements was substantial for AUC and Vp (ρc = 0.98 and 0.97), moderate for k-trans and corrected CBV (ρc = 0.94) and poor for Ve and ADC (ρc = 0.86 and 0.24). CONCLUSION: While the quantitative measurements of DSC and DCE perfusion maps show satisfactory inter-rater agreement, the qualitative assessment has lower interobserver agreement and should not be relied upon solely in the interpretation. Similarly, the suboptimal inter-rater agreement on the interpretation of enhancement pattern and diffusion restriction potentially limits their usefulness in differentiating glioma recurrence from treatment related changes.
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 | 0.042 | 0.159 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".