Data to "Phantom-based quality assurance for multicenter quantitative MRI in locally advanced cervical cancer"
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This record includes the DICOM images and analysed data that were used in the multicenter QA program for quantitative MRI in cervical cancer as published (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2020.09.013 ). The DICOM data includes the acquired DICOM data for each institute selected to those that were used in the publication. Acquisitions that were not used were removed. Data was anonymized with conquest dicom server tools. The analyzed data files are included giving per measurement the estimated quantitative parameter values as well as the position of the ROIs and extracted signal intensity values per phantom sample. An explanation of the structure of the files is added in the readme file. The analysis was done with in-house written code in matlab. Included are a description of the sequence parameters for each institute (IQEMBRACE_PhantomQA_OverviewInstitutionalSequenceParameters_20241114) and details on the choices in the analysis of the data (IQEMBRACE_PhantomQA_OverviewPhantomData_20241114). As background also the description of the measurements was added, giving more information on how the measurements were performed. This work was in preparation for the IQ-EMBRACE trial (clinicaltrials.gov NCT03210428)
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 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.104 | 0.072 |
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".