MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4316663655 · doi:10.1002/jmri.28593

Effect of Averaging Measurements From Multiple <scp>MRI</scp> Pulse Sequences on Kidney Volume Reproducibility in Autosomal Dominant Polycystic Kidney Disease

2023· article· en· W4316663655 on OpenAlexaff
Hreedi Dev, Chenglin Zhu, Arman Sharbatdaran, Syed I. Raza, Sophie J. Wang, Dominick Romano, Akshay Goel, Kurt Teichman, Mina C. Moghadam, George Shih, Jon D. Blumenfeld, Daniil Shimonov, James M. Chevalier, Martin R. Prince

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic and Kidney Cyst Diseases
Canadian institutionsColumbia College
FundersNational Center for Advancing Translational SciencesWeill Cornell Medical College
KeywordsReproducibilityAutosomal dominant polycystic kidney diseaseMedicineIntraclass correlationSteady-state free precession imagingConcordance correlation coefficientNuclear medicineSegmentationMagnetic resonance imagingInterclass correlationMathematicsRadiologyKidneyArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceStatisticsInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Total kidney volume (TKV) is an important biomarker for assessing kidney function, especially for autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease (ADPKD). However, TKV measurements from a single MRI pulse sequence have limited reproducibility, ± ~5%, similar to ADPKD annual kidney growth rates. PURPOSE: To improve TKV measurement reproducibility on MRI by extending artificial intelligence algorithms to automatically segment kidneys on T1-weighted, T2-weighted, and steady state free precession (SSFP) sequences in axial and coronal planes and averaging measurements. STUDY TYPE: Retrospective training, prospective testing. SUBJECTS: Three hundred ninety-seven patients (356 with ADPKD, 41 without), 75% for training and 25% for validation, 40 ADPKD patients for testing and 17 ADPKD patients for assessing reproducibility. FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE: T2-weighted single-shot fast spin echo (T2), SSFP, and T1-weighted 3D spoiled gradient echo (T1) at 1.5 and 3T. ASSESSMENT: 2D U-net segmentation algorithm was trained on images from all sequences. Five observers independently measured each kidney volume manually on axial T2 and using model-assisted segmentations on all sequences and image plane orientations for two MRI exams in two sessions separated by 1-3 weeks to assess reproducibility. Manual and model-assisted segmentation times were recorded. STATISTICAL TESTS: Bland-Altman, Schapiro-Wilk (normality assessment), Pearson's chi-squared (categorical variables); Dice similarity coefficient, interclass correlation coefficient, and concordance correlation coefficient for analyzing TKV reproducibility. P-value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: In 17 ADPKD subjects, model-assisted segmentations of axial T2 images were significantly faster than manual segmentations (2:49 minute vs. 11:34 minute), with no significant absolute percent difference in TKV (5.9% vs. 5.3%, P = 0.88) between scans 1 and 2. Absolute percent differences between the two scans for model-assisted segmentations on other sequences were 5.5% (axial T1), 4.5% (axial SSFP), 4.1% (coronal SSFP), and 3.2% (coronal T2). Averaging measurements from all five model-assisted segmentations significantly reduced absolute percent difference to 2.5%, further improving to 2.1% after excluding an outlier. DATA CONCLUSION: Measuring TKV on multiple MRI pulse sequences in coronal and axial planes is practical with deep learning model-assisted segmentations and can improve TKV measurement reproducibility more than 2-fold in ADPKD. EVIDENCE LEVEL: 2 TECHNICAL EFFICACY: Stage 1.

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)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.051
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 score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.090

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.051
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.245 · 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

Citations14
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Magnetic Resonance ImagingSame topicGenetic and Kidney Cyst DiseasesFrench-language works237,207