MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3206367283 · doi:10.1093/neuonc/noab245

Accuracy of central neuro-imaging review of DIPG compared with histopathology in the International DIPG Registry

2021· article· en· W3206367283 on OpenAlexaff
Margot Lazow, Christine Fuller, Mariko DeWire, Adam Lane, Pratiti Bandopadhayay, Ute Bartels, Éric Bouffet, Sylvia Cheng, Kenneth J. Cohen, Tabitha Cooney, Scott Coven, Hetal Dholaria, Blanca Diez, Kathleen Dorris, Moatasem El‐Ayadi, Ayman El‐Sheikh, Paul G. Fisher, Adriana Fonseca, Mercedes García Lombardi, Robert Greiner, Stewart Goldman, Nicholas G. Gottardo, Sridharan Gururangan, Jordan R. Hansford, Tim Hassall, Cynthia Hawkins, Lindsay Kilburn, Carl Koschmann, Sarah Leary, Jie Ma, Jane E. Minturn, Michelle Monje, Roger J. Packer, Yvan Samson, Eric Sandler, Gustavo Sevlever, Christopher L. Tinkle, Karen Tsui, Lars M. Wagner, Mohamed S. Zaghloul, David S. Ziegler, Brooklyn Chaney, Katie Black, Anthony Asher, Rachid Drissi, Maryam Fouladi, Blaise V. Jones, James Leach

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuro-Oncology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlioma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-JustineBC Children's HospitalUniversity of British ColumbiaHospital for Sick Children
FundersNational Cancer InstituteAgency for Healthcare Research and QualityIsabella and Marcus FoundationRobert Connor Dawes FoundationCure Brain Cancer FoundationBrooke Healey FoundationReflections of Grace FoundationJeffrey Thomas Hayden FoundationCure Starts Now FoundationMusella Foundation For Brain Tumor Research and Information
KeywordsMedical diagnosisHistopathologyMedicineRadiologyBiopsyStereotactic biopsyMedical imagingMagnetic resonance imagingPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Diffuse intrinsic pontine glioma (DIPG) remains a clinico-radiologic diagnosis without routine tissue acquisition. Reliable imaging distinction between DIPG and other pontine tumors with potentially more favorable prognoses and treatment considerations is essential. METHODS: Cases submitted to the International DIPG registry (IDIPGR) with histopathologic and/or radiologic data were analyzed. Central imaging review was performed on diagnostic brain MRIs (if available) by two neuro-radiologists. Imaging features suggestive of alternative diagnoses included nonpontine origin, <50% pontine involvement, focally exophytic morphology, sharply defined margins, and/or marked diffusion restriction throughout. RESULTS: Among 286 patients with pathology from biopsy and/or autopsy, 23 (8%) had histologic diagnoses inconsistent with DIPG, most commonly nondiffuse low-grade gliomas and embryonal tumors. Among 569 patients with centrally-reviewed diagnostic MRIs, 40 (7%) were classified as non-DIPG, alternative diagnosis suspected. The combined analysis included 151 patients with both histopathology and centrally-reviewed MRI. Of 77 patients with imaging classified as characteristic of DIPG, 76 (99%) had histopathologic diagnoses consistent with DIPG (infiltrating grade II-IV gliomas). Of 57 patients classified as likely DIPG with some unusual imaging features, 55 (96%) had histopathologic diagnoses consistent with DIPG. Of 17 patients with imaging features suggestive of an alternative diagnosis, eight (47%) had histopathologic diagnoses inconsistent with DIPG (remaining patients were excluded due to nonpontine tumor origin). Association between central neuro-imaging review impression and histopathology was significant (p < 0.001), and central neuro-imaging impression was prognostic of overall survival. CONCLUSIONS: The accuracy and important role of central neuro-imaging review in confirming the diagnosis of DIPG is demonstrated.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.036
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.036
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0050.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.292 · 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

Citations18
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeuro-OncologySame topicGlioma Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207