scholarly journals The influence of digital PET/CT on diagnostic certainty and interrater reliability in [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT for recurrent prostate cancer

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ian Alberts ◽  
Jan-Niklas Hünermund ◽  
Christos Sachpekidis ◽  
Clemens Mingels ◽  
Viktor Fech ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Interrater Reliability ◽  
True Positive Rate ◽  
True Positive ◽  
Recurrent Prostate Cancer ◽  
Pathological Lesions ◽  
Diagnostic Certainty ◽  
Pet Ct ◽  
Positive Rate ◽  
Digital Pet

Abstract Objective To investigate the impact of digital PET/CT on diagnostic certainty, patient-based sensitivity and interrater reliability. Methods Four physicians retrospectively evaluated two matched cohorts of patients undergoing [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT on a digital (dPET/CT n = 65) or an analogue scanner (aPET/CT n = 65) for recurrent prostate cancer between 11/2018 and 03/2019. The number of equivocal and pathological lesions as well as the frequency of discrepant findings and the interrater reliability for the two scanners were compared. Results dPET/CT detected more lesions than aPET/CT (p < 0.001). A higher number of pathological scans were observed for dPET/CT (83% vs. 57%, p < 0.001). The true-positive rate at follow-up was 100% for dPET/CT compared to 84% for aPET/CT (p < 0.001). The proportion of lesions rated as non-pathological as a total of all PSMA-avid lesions detected for dPET/CT was comparable to aPET/CT (61.8% vs. 57.0%, p = 0.99). Neither a higher rate of diagnostically uncertain lesions (11.5% dPET/CT vs. 13.7% aPET/CT, p = 0.95) nor discrepant scans (where one or more readers differed in opinion as to whether the scan is pathological) were observed (18% dPET/CT vs. 17% aPET/CT, p = 0.76). Interrater reliability for pathological lesions was excellent for both scanner types (Cronbach’s α = 0.923 dPET/CT; α = 0.948 aPET/CT) and interrater agreement was substantial for dPET/CT (Krippendorf’s α = 0.701) and almost perfect in aPET/CT (α = 0.802). Conclusions A higher detection rate for pathological lesions for dPET/CT compared with aPET/CT in multiple readers was observed. This improved sensitivity was coupled with an improved true-positive rate and was not associated with increased diagnostic uncertainty, rate of non-specific lesions, or reduced interrater reliability. Key Points • New generation digital scanners detect more cancer lesions in men with prostate cancer. • When using digital scanners, the doctors are able to diagnose prostate cancer lesions with better certainty • When using digital scanners, the doctors do not disagree with each other more than with other scanner types.

Diagnostic accuracy of Ga-68-PSMA-11 PET/CT in patients with recurrent prostate cancer

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
V Fech ◽  
C Sachpekidis ◽  
I Alberts ◽  
L Dijkstra ◽  
J von Hinten ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Diagnostic Accuracy ◽  
Recurrent Prostate Cancer ◽  
Pet Ct

scholarly journals PRATD: A Phased Remote Access Trojan Detection Method with Double-Sided Features

Electronics ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (11) ◽  
pp. 1894
Author(s):  
Chun Guo ◽  
Zihua Song ◽  
Yuan Ping ◽  
Guowei Shen ◽  
Yuhei Cui ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
False Positive ◽  
Detection Method ◽  
False Positive Rate ◽  
True Positive Rate ◽  
Remote Access ◽  
Detection Methods ◽  
Security Threats ◽  
True Positive ◽  
Trojan Detection ◽  
Positive Rate

Remote Access Trojan (RAT) is one of the most terrible security threats that organizations face today. At present, two major RAT detection methods are host-based and network-based detection methods. To complement one another’s strengths, this article proposes a phased RATs detection method by combining double-side features (PRATD). In PRATD, both host-side and network-side features are combined to build detection models, which is conducive to distinguishing the RATs from benign programs because that the RATs not only generate traffic on the network but also leave traces on the host at run time. Besides, PRATD trains two different detection models for the two runtime states of RATs for improving the True Positive Rate (TPR). The experiments on the network and host records collected from five kinds of benign programs and 20 famous RATs show that PRATD can effectively detect RATs, it can achieve a TPR as high as 93.609% with a False Positive Rate (FPR) as low as 0.407% for the known RATs, a TPR 81.928% and FPR 0.185% for the unknown RATs, which suggests it is a competitive candidate for RAT detection.

scholarly journals Classifying the Biological Status of Honeybee Workers Using Gas Sensors

Sensors ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 166
Author(s):  
Jakub T. Wilk ◽  
Beata Bąk ◽  
Piotr Artiemjew ◽  
Jerzy Wilde ◽  
Maciej Siuda
Keyword(s):  
Gas Sensors ◽  
Laboratory Tests ◽  
Test Chamber ◽  
Ambient Air ◽  
True Positive Rate ◽  
True Positive ◽  
Positive Rate ◽  
Parameters Of Accuracy ◽  
Selection Of

Honeybee workers have a specific smell depending on the age of workers and the biological status of the colony. Laboratory tests were carried out at the Department of Apiculture at UWM Olsztyn, using gas sensors installed in two twin prototype multi-sensor detectors. The study aimed to compare the responses of sensors to the odor of old worker bees (3–6 weeks old), young ones (0–1 days old), and those from long-term queenless colonies. From the experimental colonies, 10 samples of 100 workers were taken for each group and placed successively in the research chambers for the duration of the study. Old workers came from outer nest combs, young workers from hatching out brood in an incubator, and laying worker bees from long-term queenless colonies from brood combs (with laying worker bee’s eggs, humped brood, and drones). Each probe was measured for 10 min, and then immediately for another 10 min ambient air was given to regenerate sensors. The results were analyzed using 10 different classifiers. Research has shown that the devices can distinguish between the biological status of bees. The effectiveness of distinguishing between classes, determined by the parameters of accuracy balanced and true positive rate, of 0.763 and 0.742 in the case of the best euclidean.1nn classifier, may be satisfactory in the context of practical beekeeping. Depending on the environment accompanying the tested objects (a type of insert in the test chamber), the introduction of other classifiers as well as baseline correction methods may be considered, while the selection of the appropriate classifier for the task may be of great importance for the effectiveness of the classification.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document