MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4285490954 · doi:10.1148/rg.220005

Imaging Cancer in Pregnancy

2022· article· en· W4285490954 on OpenAlexaff
Priyanka Jha, Liina Pōder, Phyllis Glanc, Krupa Patel-Lippmann, Melissa McGettigan, Mariam Moshiri, Stéphanie Nougaret, Margarita V. Revzin, Marcia C. Javitt

Bibliographic record

VenueRadiographics · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer Risks and Factors
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreUniversity of TorontoSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePregnancyCancerRadiologyMammographyRadiation therapyBreast cancerMedical physicsInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pregnancy-associated cancer (PAC) is defined as cancer that is detected during pregnancy and up to 1 year postpartum. Although rare (~1:1000 pregnancies), PAC is increasing owing to postponed childbearing and advanced maternal age at conception. Cancer-related symptoms masked by physiologic gestational changes may delay diagnosis. Imaging, clinical management, and treatment require a carefully choreographed multidisciplinary team approach. The risk-benefit of every imaging modality, the strategies to balance the safety of mother and fetus, and the support of the patient and family at every step are crucial. US and MRI are preferred imaging modalities that lack ionizing radiation. Radiation dose concerns should be addressed, noting that most imaging examinations (including mammography, radiography, CT, and technetium 99m–labeled sulfur colloid sentinel lymph node staging) are performed at radiation levels below thresholds at which deterministic side effects are seen. Dose estimates should be provided after each examination. The use of iodinated intravenous contrast material is safe during pregnancy, but gadolinium-based contrast material should be avoided. Accurate diagnosis and staging combined with gestational age affect decisions about surgery and chemotherapy. Whole-body MRI with diffusion-weighted sequences is ideal to screen for primary and metastatic sites, determine disease stage, identify biopsy targets, and guide further cancer site–specific imaging. The authors provide an update of the imaging triage, safety considerations, cancer-specific imaging, and treatment options for cancer in pregnancy. An invited commentary by Silverstein and Van Loon is available online. Online supplemental material is available for this article. ©RSNA, 2022

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.106
Threshold uncertainty score0.563

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.280 · 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.

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

Citations39
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRadiographicsSame topicCancer Risks and FactorsFrench-language works237,207