English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

.   Purpose:  Our study predictively maps epithelium density in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) space while varying the ground truth labels provided by five pathologists to quantify the downstream effects of interobserver variability.   Approach:  Clinical imaging and postsurgical tissue from 48 recruited prospective patients were used in our study. Tissue was sliced to match the MRI orientation and whole-mount slides were stained and digitized. Data from 28 patients (    n  =  33slides) were sent to five pathologists to be annotated. Slides from the remaining 20 patients (    n  =  123slides) were annotated by one of the five pathologists. Interpathologist variability was measured using Krippendorff’s alpha. Pathologist-specific radiopathomic mapping models were trained using a partial least-squares regression using MRI values to predict epithelium density, a known marker for disease severity. An analysis of variance characterized intermodel means difference in epithelium density. A consensus model was created and evaluated using a receiver operator characteristic classifying high grade versus low grade and benign, and was statistically compared to apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC).   Results:  Interobserver variability ranged from low to acceptable agreement (0.31 to 0.69). There was a statistically significant difference in mean predicted epithelium density values (    p  <  0.001    ) between the five models. The consensus model outperformed ADC (areas under the curve = 0.80 and 0.71, respectively,p  <  0.05    ).   Conclusion:  We demonstrate that radiopathomic maps of epithelium density are sensitive to the pathologist annotating the dataset; however, it is unclear if these differences are clinically significant. The consensus model produced the best maps, matched the performance of the best individual model, and outperformed ADC.

Radio-pathomic mapping model generated using annotations from five pathologists reliably distinguishes high-grade prostate cancer