Detecting Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer in PI-RADS 3 Lesions Using T2w-Derived Radiomics Feature Maps in 3T Prostate MRI
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2.1 (PI-RADS) category 3 lesions are a challenge in the clinical workflow. A better detection of the infrequently occurring clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) in PI-RADS 3 lesions is an important objective. The purpose of this study was to evaluate if feature maps calculated from T2-weighted (T2w) 3 Tesla (3T) MRI can help detect csPCa in PI-RADS category 3 lesions. In-house biparametric 3T prostate MRI examinations acquired between January 2019 and June 2023 because of elevated prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels were retrospectively screened. Inclusion criteria were a PI-RADS 3 lesion and available results of an ultrasound-guided targeted and systematic biopsy. Exclusion criteria were a simultaneous PI-RADS category 4 or 5 lesion and hip replacement. Target lesions with the International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grade group 1 were rated clinically insignificant PCa (ciPCa) and ≥2 csPCa. This resulted in 52 patients being included in the final analysis, of whom 11 (21.1%), 8 (15.4%), and 33 (63.5%) patients had csPCa, ciPCa, and no PCa, respectively, with the latter two groups being combined as non-csPCa. Eight of the csPCas were located in the peripheral zone (PZ) and three in the transition zone (TZ). In the non-csPCa group, 29 were located in the PZ and 12 in the TZ. Target lesions were marked with volumes of interest (VOIs) on axial T2w images. Axial T2w images were then converted to 93 feature maps. VOIs were copied into the maps, and feature quantity was retrieved directly. Features were tested for significant differences with the Mann-Whitney U-test. Univariate models for single feature performance and bivariate models implementing PSA density (PSAD) were calculated. Ten map-derived features differed significantly between the csPCa and non-csPCa groups (AUCs: 0.70-0.84). The diagnostic performance for TZ lesions (AUC: 0.83-1.00) was superior to PZ lesions (AUC: 0.74-0.85). In the bivariate models, performance in the PZ improved with AUCs >0.90 throughout. Parametric feature maps alone and as bivariate models with PSAD can (?) noninvasively identify csPCa in PI-RADS 3 lesions and could serve as a quantitative tool reducing ambiguity in PI-RADS 3 lesions.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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".