Limited Utility of Dynamic Contrast Enhancement Imaging Sequences Within the PI-RADS v2.1 Classification Scheme: A Retrospective Cross-Sectional Study of MRI Reports
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background/Objective: We sought to characterize the proportion of peripheral zone lesions “upgraded” within the PI-RADS v2.1 protocol using DCE imaging sequences in a large patient population undergoing multiparametric prostate MRI. Methods: A retrospective review of radiologist reports for 2742 prostate MRI exams at 2 large Alberta teaching hospitals between January 2017 and January 2022 was conducted. Prostate specific antigen (PSA), prostate volume, sequence specific and overall PI-RADS scores, and lesion positivity for DCE were collected if present in the accompanying radiology report. Further, pathology reports of biopsies of the upgraded lesions within upgraded patients were reviewed to see if upgraded lesions were deemed clinically significant by gleason score/grade group. Results: The median age was 63 years, with a median PSA and PSA density of 7.5 ng/mL and 0.13 ng/mL 2 respectively. A total of 1809 lesions were reported, with 69.4% of all lesions being DCE positive. Of the lesions within the peripheral zone, 548 were overall PI-RADS 4. A total of 87/2742 (3.2%) of patients were upgraded to a PI-RADS 4 by DCE imaging. Within these patients, 65 had pathology reports available, of which 18 had a clinically significant lesion at the upgrade site. Conclusion: Contrast enhancement is only beneficial for a very small portion of patients undergoing prostate MRI. Given the invasive nature of contrast enhanced studies, potential contrast induced side effects, added imaging time, and the cost of contrast agent, routine use of contrast for prostate MRI is questioned. Further studies are necessary to determine if it should be part of routine prostate MRI imaging protocols.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".