MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400605180 · doi:10.1016/j.euros.2024.06.017

Inter-reader Agreement for Prostate Cancer Detection Using Micro-ultrasound: A Multi-institutional Study

2024· article· en· W4400605180 on OpenAlexaff
Steve Zhou, Moon Hyung Choi, Sulaiman Vesal, Adam Kinnaird, Wayne Brisbane, Giovanni Lughezzani, Davide Maffei, Vittorio Fasulo, Patrick Albers, Li‐Chun Zhang, Zachary Kornberg, Richard E. Fan, Wei Shao, Mirabela Rusu, Geoffrey A. Sonn

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Urology Open Science · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNational Cancer Institute
KeywordsMedicineProstate cancerBiopsyProstateConfidence intervalUltrasoundInstitutional review boardMagnetic resonance imagingCancerRadiologyProspective cohort studyCancer detectionNuclear medicineSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background and objective: Micro-ultrasound (MUS) uses a high-frequency transducer with superior resolution to conventional ultrasound, which may differentiate prostate cancer from normal tissue and thereby allow targeted biopsy. Preliminary evidence has shown comparable sensitivity to magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), but consistency between users has yet to be described. Our objective was to assess agreement of MUS interpretation across multiple readers. Methods: After institutional review board approval, we prospectively collected MUS images for 57 patients referred for prostate biopsy after multiparametric MRI from 2022 to 2023. MUS images were interpreted by six urologists at four institutions with varying experience (range 2-6 yr). Readers were blinded to MRI results and clinical data. The primary outcome was reader agreement on the locations of suspicious lesions, measured in terms of Light's κ and positive percent agreement (PPA). Reader sensitivity for identification of grade group (GG) ≥2 prostate cancer was a secondary outcome. Key findings and limitations: Analysis revealed a κ value of 0.30 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.21-0.39). PPA was 33% (95% CI 25-42%). The mean patient-level sensitivity for GG ≥2 cancer was 0.66 ± 0.05 overall and 0.87 ± 0.09 when cases with anterior lesions were excluded. Readers were 12 times more likely to detect higher-grade cancers (GG ≥3), with higher levels of agreement for this subgroup (κ 0.41, PPA 45%). Key limitations include the inability to prospectively biopsy reader-delineated targets and the inability of readers to perform live transducer maneuvers. Conclusions and clinical implications: Inter-reader agreement on the location of suspicious lesions on MUS is lower than rates previously reported for MRI. MUS sensitivity for cancer in the anterior gland is lacking. Patient summary: The ability to find cancer on imaging scans can vary between doctors. We found that there was frequent disagreement on the location of prostate cancer when doctors were using a new high-resolution scan method called micro-ultrasound. This suggests that the performance of micro-ultrasound is not yet consistent enough to replace MRI (magnetic resonance imaging) for diagnosis of prostate cancer.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.476
Threshold uncertainty score0.501

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.071
GPT teacher head0.378
Teacher spread0.307 · 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

Citations12
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Urology Open ScienceSame topicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207