↓ Skip to main content

A comparison of Bayesian and non-linear regression methods for robust estimation of pharmacokinetics in DCE-MRI and how it affects cancer diagnosis

Overview of attention for article published in Computerized Medical Imaging & Graphics, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
57 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
A comparison of Bayesian and non-linear regression methods for robust estimation of pharmacokinetics in DCE-MRI and how it affects cancer diagnosis
Published in
Computerized Medical Imaging & Graphics, February 2017
DOI 10.1016/j.compmedimag.2017.01.003
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

The aim of this work is to compare Bayesian Inference for nonlinear models with commonly used traditional non-linear regression (NR) algorithms for estimating tracer kinetics in Dynamic Contrast Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging (DCE-MRI). The algorithms are compared in terms of accuracy, and reproducibility under different initialization settings. Further it is investigated how a more robust estimation of tracer kinetics affects cancer diagnosis. The derived tracer kinetics from the Bayesian algorithm were validated against traditional NR algorithms (i.e. Levenberg-Marquardt, simplex) in terms of accuracy on a digital DCE phantom and in terms of goodness-of-fit (Kolmogorov-Smirnov test) on ROI-based concentration time courses from two different patient cohorts. The first cohort consisted of 76 men, 20 of whom had significant peripheral zone prostate cancer (any cancer-core-length (CCL) with Gleason>3+3 or any-grade with CCL>=4mm) following transperineal template prostate mapping biopsy. The second cohort consisted of 9 healthy volunteers and 24 patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. The diagnostic ability of the derived tracer kinetics was assessed with receiver operating characteristic area under curve (ROC AUC) analysis. The Bayesian algorithm accurately recovered the ground-truth tracer kinetics for the digital DCE phantom consistently improving the Structural Similarity Index (SSIM) across the 50 different initializations compared to NR. For optimized initialization, Bayesian did not improve significantly the fitting accuracy on both patient cohorts, and it only significantly improved the ve ROC AUC on the HN population from ROC AUC=0.56 for the simplex to ROC AUC=0.76. For both cohorts, the values and the diagnostic ability of tracer kinetic parameters estimated with the Bayesian algorithm weren't affected by their initialization. To conclude, the Bayesian algorithm led to a more accurate and reproducible quantification of tracer kinetic parameters in DCE-MRI, improving their ROC-AUC and decreasing their dependence on initialization settings.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 57 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
United States 1 2%
Unknown 56 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 12 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 18%
Student > Master 7 12%
Other 4 7%
Student > Bachelor 3 5%
Other 9 16%
Unknown 12 21%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 17 30%
Computer Science 6 11%
Physics and Astronomy 6 11%
Engineering 6 11%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 4%
Other 6 11%
Unknown 14 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 07 February 2018.
All research outputs
#31,377,506
of 34,559,526 outputs
Outputs from Computerized Medical Imaging & Graphics
#877
of 954 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#418,872
of 472,297 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Computerized Medical Imaging & Graphics
#6
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,559,526 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 954 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.5. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 472,297 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.