MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4320880070 · doi:10.1186/s40644-023-00531-4

Detection of solid and subsolid pulmonary nodules with lung MRI: performance of UTE, T1 gradient-echo, and single-shot T2 fast spin echo

2023· article· en· W4320880070 on OpenAlexaff
Felipe Sánchez Tijmes, Pascal N. Tyrrell, Patrick Cheung, Chris Heyn, Simon J. Graham, Ian Poon, Yee Ung, Alexander V. Louie, May Tsao, Anastasia Oikonomou

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Imaging · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLung Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreUniversity of TorontoSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMcNemar's testNuclear medicineNodule (geology)RadiologyLungMagnetic resonance imagingInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Although MRI is a radiation-free imaging modality, it has historically been limited in lung imaging due to inherent technical restrictions. The aim of this study is to explore the performance of lung MRI in detecting solid and subsolid pulmonary nodules using T1 gradient-echo (GRE) (VIBE, Volumetric interpolated breath-hold examination), ultrashort time echo (UTE) and T2 Fast Spin Echo (HASTE, Half fourier Single-shot Turbo spin-Echo). METHODS: Patients underwent a lung MRI in a 3 T scanner as part of a prospective research project. A baseline Chest CT was obtained as part of their standard of care. Nodules were identified and measured on the baseline CT and categorized according to their density (solid and subsolid) and size (> 4 mm/ ≤ 4 mm). Nodules seen on the baseline CT were classified as present or absent on the different MRI sequences by two thoracic radiologists independently. Interobserver agreement was determined using the simple Kappa coefficient. Paired differences were compared using nonparametric Mann-Whitney U tests. The McNemar test was used to evaluate paired differences in nodule detection between MRI sequences. RESULTS: Thirty-six patients were prospectively enrolled. One hundred forty-nine nodules (100 solid/49 subsolid) with mean size 10.8 mm (SD = 9.4) were included in the analysis. There was substantial interobserver agreement (k = 0.7, p = 0.05). Detection for all nodules, solid and subsolid nodules was respectively; UTE: 71.8%/71.0%/73.5%; VIBE: 61.6%/65%/55.1%; HASTE 72.4%/72.2%/72.7%. Detection rate was higher for nodules > 4 mm in all groups: UTE 90.2%/93.4%/85.4%, VIBE 78.4%/88.5%/63.4%, HASTE 89.4%/93.8%/83.8%. Detection of lesions ≤4 mm was low for all sequences. UTE and HASTE performed significantly better than VIBE for detection of all nodules and subsolid nodules (diff = 18.4 and 17.6%, p = < 0.01 and p = 0.03, respectively). There was no significant difference between UTE and HASTE. There were no significant differences amongst MRI sequences for solid nodules. CONCLUSIONS: Lung MRI shows adequate performance for the detection of solid and subsolid pulmonary nodules larger than 4 mm and can serve as a promising radiation-free alternative to CT.

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)0.009
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.267 · 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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer ImagingSame topicLung Cancer Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207