MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4304809009 · doi:10.1088/1361-6560/ac99b4

Effect of magnetic resonance imaging pre-processing on the performance of model-based prostate tumor probability mapping

2022· article· en· W4304809009 on OpenAlexafffund
Stephanie Alley, Edward F. Jackson, Damien Olivié, Uulke A. van der Heide, Cynthia Ménard, Samuel Kadoury

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysics in Medicine and Biology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de MontréalPolytechnique Montréal
FundersRéseau en Bio-Imagerie du Quebec
KeywordsNormalization (sociology)Computer scienceMagnetic resonance imagingImage processingArtificial intelligenceData processingParametric statisticsProstate cancerPipeline (software)ProstatePattern recognition (psychology)MedicineRadiologyCancerMathematicsStatisticsImage (mathematics)Database

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Objective . Multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) has become an important tool for the detection of prostate cancer in the past two decades. Despite the high sensitivity of MRI for tissue characterization, it often suffers from a lack of specificity. Several well-established pre-processing tools are publicly available for improving image quality and removing both intra- and inter-patient variability in order to increase the diagnostic accuracy of MRI. To date, most of these pre-processing tools have largely been assessed individually. In this study we present a systematic evaluation of a multi-step mpMRI pre-processing pipeline to automate tumor localization within the prostate using a previously trained model. Approach . The study was conducted on 31 treatment-naïve prostate cancer patients with a PI-RADS-v2 compliant mpMRI examination. Multiple methods were compared for each pre-processing step: (1) bias field correction, (2) normalization, and (3) deformable multi-modal registration. Optimal parameter values were estimated for each step on the basis of relevant individual metrics. Tumor localization was then carried out via a model-based approach that takes both mpMRI and prior clinical knowledge features as input. A sequential optimization approach was adopted for determining the optimal parameters and techniques in each step of the pipeline. Main results . The application of bias field correction alone increased the accuracy of tumor localization (area under the curve (AUC) = 0.77; p -value = 0.004) over unprocessed data (AUC = 0.74). Adding normalization to the pre-processing pipeline further improved diagnostic accuracy of the model to an AUC of 0.85 ( p -value = 0.000 12). Multi-modal registration of apparent diffusion coefficient images to T2-weighted images improved the alignment of tumor locations in all but one patient, resulting in a slight decrease in accuracy (AUC = 0.84; p -value = 0.30). Significance . Overall, our findings suggest that the combined effect of multiple pre-processing steps with optimal values has the ability to improve the quantitative classification of prostate cancer using mpMRI. Clinical trials: NCT03378856 and NCT03367702.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.271 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations4
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysics in Medicine and Biology→Same topicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment→French-language works237,207→