MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4409107652 · doi:10.1117/12.3043835

Assessing the impact of a pre-processing pipeline on a tumor localization model in prostate MRI within a large multi-institutional dataset (NRG-GU005)

2025· article· en· W4409107652 on OpenAlexaff
Stephanie Alley, Marion Tonneau, Damien Olivié, Clare M. Tempany, Peter L. Choyke, Baris I. Turkbey, Uulke A. van der Heide, Rodney J. Ellis, Thomas Boike, Daniel J. Pennington, Arthur Frazier, C.A. Lawton, Nelson Leong, Alina Mihai, Scott C. Morgan, Abhishek A. Solanki, Jeff M. Michalski, Felix Y. Feng, Howard Sandler, Cynthia Ménard, Samuel Kadoury

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalPolytechnique Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPipeline (software)Computer scienceProstateMagnetic resonance imagingArtificial intelligenceMedicineRadiologyInternal medicineCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) is increasingly recognized as a valuable tool for characterizing prostate cancer, integrating T2-weighted (T2w), diffusion-weighted (DWI), and dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) imaging. Despite its high sensitivity in localizing tumors, the specificity of mpMRI was shown to be hindered by benign conditions that mimic cancerous tissue features. The aim of this study is to investigate the effect of a pre-processing pipeline integrating state-of-the-art registration, bias field correction and normalization tools. We validated this pre-processing pipeline on a large multi-site dataset of 468 patients from 109 institutions. After performing all pre-processing, tumor localization was determined using a model-based tumor localization approach that takes both multi-parametric MRI and prior clinical knowledge features as input. Results show deformable image registration yielded a significant improvement in tumor localization accuracy, both for the diameter analysis as well as the area under the curve comparison for the subset of patients with ground truth tumor delineations.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.390
Teacher spread0.370 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging→French-language works237,207→