Comparison of clinically available dynamic susceptibility contrast post processing software to differentiate progression from pseudoprogression in post-treatment high grade glioma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this retrospective study was to compare two, widely available software packages for calculation of Dynamic Susceptibility Contrast (DSC) perfusion MRI normalized relative Cerebral Blood Volume (rCBV) values to differentiate tumor progression from pseudoprogression in treated high-grade glioma patients. MATERIAL AND METHODS: rCBV maps processed by Siemens Syngo.via (Siemens Healthineers) and Olea Sphere (Olea Medical) software packages were co-registered to contrast-enhanced T1 (T1-CE). Regions of interest based on T1-CE were transferred to the rCBV maps. rCBV was calculated using mean values and normalized using contralateral normal- appearing white matter. The Wilcoxon test was performed to assess for significant differences, and software-specific optimal rCBV cutoff values were determined using the Youden index. Interrater reliability was evaluated for two raters using the intraclass correlation coefficient. RESULTS: 41 patients (18 females; median age = 59 years; range 21-77 years) with 49 new or size-increasing post-treatment contrast-enhancing lesions were included (tumor progression = 40 lesions; pseudoprogression = 9 lesions). Optimal rCBV cutoffs of 1.31 (Syngo.via) and 2.40 (Olea) were significantly different, with an AUC of 0.74 and 0.78, respectively. Interrater reliability was 0.85. DISCUSSION: We demonstrate that different clinically available MRI DSC-perfusion software packages generate significantly different rCBV cutoff values for the differentiation of tumor progression from pseudoprogression in standard-of-care treated high grade gliomas. Physicians may want to determine the unique value of their perfusion software packages on an institutional level in order to maximize diagnostic accuracy when faced with this clinical challenge. Furthermore, combined with implementation of current DSC-perfusion recommendations, multi-center comparability will be improved.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".