MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3212710412 · doi:10.1259/bjr.20210633

Multiparametric ultrasound and micro-ultrasound in prostate cancer: a comprehensive review

2021· review· en· W3212710412 on OpenAlexaff
Adriano Basso Dias, Ciara O’Brien, Jean-Michel Corréas, Sangeet Ghai

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Radiology · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsWomen's College HospitalUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health NetworkMount Sinai Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineUltrasoundProstate cancerRadiologyRectal examinationProstateProstate biopsyBiopsyContrast-enhanced ultrasoundMultiparametric MRICancerInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Prostate cancer (PCa) is the most common non-cutaneous cancer diagnosed in males. Traditional tools for screening and diagnosis, such as prostate-specific antigen, digital rectal examination and conventional transrectal ultrasound (TRUS), present low accuracy for PCa detection. Multiparametric MRI has become a game changer in the PCa diagnosis pathway and MRI-targeted biopsies are currently recommended for males at risk of clinically significant PCa, even in biopsy-naïve patients. Recent advances in ultrasound have also emerged with the goal to provide a readily accessible and cost-effective tool for detection of PCa. These newer techniques include elastography and contrast-enhanced ultrasound, as well as improved B-mode and Doppler techniques. These modalities can be combined to define a novel ultrasound approach, multiparametric ultrasound. High frequency Micro-ultrasound has emerged as a promising imaging technology for PCa diagnosis. Initial results have shown high sensitivity of Micro-ultrasound in detecting PCa in addition to its potential in improving the accuracy of targeted biopsies, based on targeting under real-time visualization, rather than relying on cognitive/fusion software MRI-transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.922
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.037
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.311 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations46
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of RadiologySame topicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207