MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403244472 · doi:10.3174/ajnr.a8529

Comparison of Diffusion-Weighted MRI Using Single-Shot Echo-Planar Imaging and Split Acquisition of Fast Spin-Echo Signal Imaging, a Non-EPI Technique, in Tumors of the Head and Neck

2024· article· en· W4403244472 on OpenAlexaff
Hedda J. van der Hulst, Loes Braun, Bram Westerink, Georgios Agrotis, Leon C. ter Beek, Renaud Tissier, Milad Ahmadian, Roland M. Martens, Jan Casselman, Michiel W. M. van den Brekel, Jonas A. Castelijns

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Neuroradiology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMRI in cancer diagnosis
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEcho-planar imagingSingle shotFast spin echoEcho (communications protocol)Head and neckHead and neck squamous-cell carcinomaSpin echoNuclear magnetic resonanceImage qualityNuclear medicineSIGNAL (programming language)Diffusion MRIMagnetic resonance imagingRadiologyOpticsHead and neck cancerPhysicsImage (mathematics)Computer vision

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) using single-shot echo planar imaging (DW-EPI) is susceptible to distortions around air-filled cavities and dental fillings, typical for the head and neck area. Non-EPI, Split acquisition of fast spin echo signals for diffusion imaging (DWSPLICE) could reduce these distortions and enhance image quality, thereby potentially improving recurrence assessment in squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) of the head and neck region. This study evaluated whether DW-SPLICE is a viable alternative to DW-EPI through quantitative and qualitative analyses. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The DW-SPLICE sequence was incorporated into the standard 3.0T head and neck MRI protocol with DW-EPI. Retrospective analysis was conducted on two subgroups: firstly benign or malignant lesions, and secondly post-treatment SCC recurrence. In both subgroups Image quality and distortion were scored by two independent radiologists, blinded for DW-technique, and evaluated using mixed-effect linear models. Lesion apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values were assessed with inter-class correlation (ICC) and Bland-Altman analyses. DWI’s delineation geometric similarity to T1-weighted post-contrast (T1Wc) MRI was evaluated using the Dice Similarity Coefficient (DSC) before and after registration. Recurrence in post-treatment SCC scans was evaluated by the same two radiologists blinded for DW-technique. Recurrence detection rates were then compared between DW-SPLICE and DW-EPI using mixed logistic regression at six months and at one-year post-scan follow-up data. RESULTS: From August 2020 to January 2022, 55 benign or malignant lesion scans (55 patients) and 74 post-treatment SCC scans (66 patients) were analyzed. DW-SPLICE scored better on image quality and showed less overall distortion than DW-EPI (0.04 CONCLUSIONS: DW-SPLICE surpasses DW-EPI on image distortion and quality and improves diagnostic reliability for detecting recurrent or residual SCC on 3T MRI of the HN. Consistent use of one method for follow-up is advised, as ADC values are not completely interchangeable. Integrating DW-SPLICE can significantly improve tumor assessments in clinical practice. ABBREVIATIONS: ANTs = Advanced Normalization Tools; DSC = Dice Similarity Coefficient; DW-EPI = Diffusion-weighted single-shot echo planar imaging; DW-MS-EPI = Diffusion-weighted multi-shot echo planar imaging; DW-SPLICE = Diffusion-weighted split acquisition of fast spin echo signals for diffusion imaging; DW-TSE = Diffusion-weighted Turbo Spin Echo; ICC = Intraclass Correlation Coefficient; ROC = Receiver Operating Characteristic; SCC = Squamous cell carcinoma; T1WIc = T1 weighted imaging with gadolinium contrast.

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)0.005
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.313 · 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

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of NeuroradiologySame topicMRI in cancer diagnosisFrench-language works237,207