Citations

Firefighters often complete air management courses (AMC) to assess the ability to tolerate personal protective equipment, appropriately manage the breathing system and assess occupational performance. Little information is known relative to the physiological demands of AMCs, nor how to assess work efficiency in order to characterize occupational performance and evaluate progress. Purpose: To assess the physiological demands of an AMC and examine differences across BMI categories. A secondary aim was to develop an equation to assess work efficiency in firefighters. Methods: Fifty-seven firefighters (Women, n = 4; age: 37.2 ± 8.4 yr.; height: 182.0 ± 6.9 cm; body mass: 90.8 ± 13.1 kg; BMI: 27.8 ± 3.6 kg·m−2) completed an AMC per routine evaluation while wearing a department issued self-contained breathing apparatus and full protective gear. Course completion time, starting pounds per square inch (PSI) on the air cylinder, changes in PSI, and distance traveled were recorded. All firefighters were equipped with a wearable sensor integrated with a triaxial accelerometer and telemetry to assess movement kinematics, heart rate, energy expenditure, and training impulse. The AMC consisted of an initial section involving a hose line advance, rescue (body drag), stair climb, ladder raise, and forcible entry. This section was followed by a repeating loop, which consisted of a stair climb, search, hoist, and recovery walk. Firefighters repeated the course loop until the self-contained breathing apparatus air supply pressure reached 200 PSI, at which time they were instructed to lay down until the PSI reached zero. Results: Average completion time was 22.8 ± 1.4 min, with a mean distance of 1.4 ± 0.3 km and an average velocity of 2.4 ± 1.2 m·s−1. Throughout the AMC, the mean heart rate was 158.7 ± 11.5 bpm equating to 86.8 ± 6.3% of the age-predicted max heart rate and a training impulse of 55 ± 3 AU. Mean energy expenditure was 464 ± 86 kcals and work efficiency was 49.8 ± 14.9 km·PSI−1·s. Regression analysis determined that fat-free mass index (R2 = 0.315; β = −5.069), body fat percentage (R2 = 0.139; β = −0.853), fat-free mass (R2 = 0.176; β = −0.744), weight (R2 = 0.329; β = −0.681), and age (R2 = 0.096; β = −0.571) were significant predictors of work efficiency. Conclusions: The AMC is a highly aerobic task with near-maximal heart rates reached throughout the course. Smaller and leaner individuals achieved a higher degree of work efficiency during the AMC.

In endocrine pathology, surgical pathologists often concentrate on neoplasms at the expense of non-neoplastic disease processes. This is unfortunate as non-neoplastic endocrine disorders are many times more common in the population. As in all fields of medicine, non-neoplastic endocrine diseases can closely mimic the neoplastic; an awareness of all aspects of pathology underpins routine clinical practice. This 5th Series Fascicle offers pathologists and clinicians an opportunity to develop an increased understanding of nontumor endocrine pathology in order to inform patient care.

Abstract Missing MRI sequences are common in radiology due to differences in protocols, time constraints, and image artifacts. Missing sequences are a nuisance for subsequent algorithms, such as automated segmentation algorithms requiring multiple MRI sequences (e.g., HD-GLIO, which requires T2, T1, post-contrast T1 (T1c), and FLAIR). Accurate tumor segmentation is a fundamental step in extracting radiomics analysis to use, for example, to predict the IDH status of glioma or their overall survival. We validated a conditional (pix2pix) and super-resolution GAN (SOUP-GAN) for imputing MRI sequences on 285 adult glioma with complete MRI sequences available. We simulated missing T1 sequences and subsequently imputed them from T1c using pix2pix and from sagittal T1 using SOUP-GAN. Using HD-GLIO, we obtained the true segmentations from the complete MRI sequences. HD-GLIO was also used after replacing the original T1 sequence with the one imputed with pix2pix and SOUP-GAN. Thus, there were three sets of segmentations for each subject. We compared T2 and T1c radiomics features extracted with Pyradiomics using segmentations obtained with complete data with features extracted from segmentation obtained with the imputed T1 sequences using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and Bland-Altman (BA) analysis. Median (interquartile range) ICC for shape features extracted from T2 and T1c were 0.82(0.76-0.92) using pix2pix and 0.89(0.86-0.94) using SOUP-GAN. Median ICC for first-order-statistics features were 0.90(0.83-0.93) for T2 and 0.90(0.88-0.92) for T1c using pix2pix, and 0.61(0.22-0.82) for T2 and 0.42(0.34-0.57) for T1c using SOUP-GAN. Median ICC for texture features were 0.86(0.82-0.87) for T2 and 0.87(0.79-0.90) for T1c using pix2pix, and 0.69(0.47-0.81) for T2 and 0.76(0.65-0.83) for T1c using SOUP-GAN. We show that T2 and T1c shape features (e.g., volumetric analysis) can be adequately extracted from segmentations obtained with an algorithm requiring multiple MRI sequences using T1 sequences imputed with GANs; however, the effect of imputation differed for first-order-statistics and texture features.

Abstract GBM is the most common primary malignant brain tumor in adults. O6-methylguanine DNA methyltransferase (MGMT) promoter methylation status is an important prognostic biomarker that predicts the response to temozolomide and guides the treatment decisions. At present, the only reliable way to determine MGMT promoter methylation status is through the analysis of tumor tissues. Given the limitations and complications of histology-based methods, an imaging-based approach for non-invasively MGMT promoter methylation status prediction is beneficial. This study aimed to develop and compare three different deep-learning-based approaches for predicting MGMT promoter methylation status non-invasively. We obtained 576 T2 weighted images (T2WIs) with their corresponding tumor masks and MGMT promoter methylation status from, The Brain Tumor Segmentation (BraTS) 2021 datasets. Dataset was split into five folds at the patient's level stratified by MGMT promoter methylation status to perform a 5-fold cross-validation. We developed three different models: voxel-wise, slice-wise, and whole-brain. For voxel-wise classification, methylated and unmethylated MGMT tumor masks were made into 1 and 2 with 0 background, respectively. We converted each T2WI into 32x32x32 patches. We trained a 3D-Vnet model for tumor segmentation. After inference, we constructed the whole brain volume based on the patch's coordinates. The final prediction of MGMT methylation status was made by majority voting between the predicted voxel values of the biggest connected component. For slice-wise classification, we trained an object detection model for tumor detection and MGMT methylation status prediction; then, we used majority voting for the final prediction. For the whole-brain approach, we trained a 3D Densenet121 for prediction. Whole-brain, slice-wise, voxel-wise, accuracy was 65.42%(SD 3.97%), 61.37%(SD 1.48%), and 56.84%(SD 4.38%) respectively. We found that across the whole-brain, slice-wise, and voxel-wise deep learning approaches, the whole-brain approach is the most effective approach for MGMT methylation status prediction on the BraTS 2021 dataset.

Abstract GBMs are highly aggressive tumors, evidenced by their rapid growth. Despite maximal treatment, median overall survival ranges between 16 and 20 months. Several studies use patients' diagnosis time(pre-surgical) imaging to predict their survival, but having a model that can predict the days till death for the patients who received the first standard step treatments (Stupp protocol) and now showing secondary progression signs is highly needed. In this study, we aimed to predict the overall survival of Glioblastoma(GBM) patients by developing a multimodal deep learning model using post-operative magnetic resonance imaging(MRI) and patients' age. We included GBM patients who met the following inclusion criteria: having maximum surgical resection followed by concurrent chemoradiation and showing secondary progression signs in follow-up imaging while being on adjuvant temozolomide treatment. We obtained contrast-enhanced T1(CET1) and T2-weighted(T2W) MRIs at progression time and patients' age and death dates. We calculated the days of survival from the day of the MRI. Dataset was split into train, validation, and test set at the patient level. CET1 and T2W MRIs were skull-stripped and coregistered for each patient. To mitigate data imbalance, we used the deep imbalance regression method for training a 3-D Densenet121 model with the concatenated CET1 and T2W as inputs. One hundred features were extracted from the optimized model and concatenated with the normalized age of each patient; the resulting output vectors were passed through the second dense neural network for final prediction. We included 110 patients who met the inclusion criteria. With the overall survival ranging from 16 to 4500 days, a mean of 582.4 and a standard deviation of 694.3, we achieved the test set's root mean square error of 261 days. Further refinement with more data, including clinical data such as comorbidities and external validation, is required prior to adoption in clinical practice.

Abstract INTRODUCTION Glioblastomas (GBMs) are highly aggressive tumors. A common clinical challenge after standard of care treatment is differentiating tumor progression from treatment-related changes, also known as pseudoprogression (PsP). Usually, PsP resolves or stabilizes without further treatment or a course of steroids, whereas true progression (TP) requires more aggressive management. Differentiating PsP from TP will affect the patient's outcome. This study investigated using deep learning to distinguish PsP MRI features from progressive disease. METHOD We included newly diagnosed GBM patients who met the inclusion criteria, including a new or increasing enhancing lesion size within the original radiation field and who had clinical, medication, and any histopathology available. The interpretation of the MR images at the image inclusion time point had to be indeterminate. We labeled those who subsequently were stable or improved on imaging and clinically as PSP and those with clinical and imaging deterioration as TP. A subset of subjects underwent a second resection. We labeled these subjects as PSP or TP based on the histological diagnosis. We performed skull stripping, coregistered contrast-enhanced T1 MRIs with T2-weighted images for each patient and used them as input to a 3-D Densenet121 model. We used several augmentation techniques and five-fold cross-validation to achieve more robust predictions. RESULT We included 124 patients who met the criteria, and of those, 63 were PsP and 61 were TP. We trained a deep learning model that achieved 76.4% (ranged 70%-84%, SD 5.122) mean accuracy over the 5 folds, 0.7560(ranged 0.6553-0.8535, SD 0.069) mean AUROCC, 88.72% (SD 6.86) mean sensitivity, and 62.05%(SD 9.11) mean specificity. CONCLUSION We report the development of a deep learning model that distinguishes PsP from TP in GBM patients treated per the Stupp protocol. Further refinement and external validation are required prior to widespread adoption in clinical practice.

Abstract PURPOSE Though patients with glioblastoma generally have poor overall survival (OS), OS estimates range significantly. We sought to develop a radiomics-based model predictive of OS in glioblastoma using preoperative MRI scans to identify these differences and guide clinical care. METHODS The primary endpoint was OS, determined from the date of surgery to death or last follow-up. T1, FLAIR, T2, and post-contrast T1 (T1c) MRI sequences were obtained for all patients. Using HD-GLIO-AUTO, lesion segmentation yielded three masks corresponding to the regions of contrast enhancement, non-enhancement, and total volume. Radiomics features were extracted from each region from the T2 and T1c sequences independently (i.e. either from T2 or T1c) and in combination. Age at surgery and gender were also considered. The data was split into training (75%) and test (25%) sets, stratifying for age at surgery. Kaplan-Meier analysis and the Coxnet model were used. For Coxnet, Elastic Net was used as the penalty, with optimization of the L1 coefficient using 5-fold cross-validation and evaluation via the concordance index (C-index). RESULTS From 3 institutions, 383 patients were included. Median OS was 395 days: 346 patients died, and 37 were right-censored. Age > 65 years was predictive of decreased OS (p < 0.005), but gender was not (p=0.16). For the Coxnet model, the C-index was 0.67 (standard deviation: 0.01) considering T2 and T1c sequences for the total lesion volume, with a C-index of 0.65 for the test set. For the enhancing volume, the model had a C-index of 0.71 for the test set using T1c sequences. Overall, C-indices ranged from 0.62-0.71. CONCLUSIONS We present a novel radiomics-based model predictive of OS in glioblastoma across a multi-institutional dataset. Ongoing efforts will incorporate immediate postoperative imaging and IDH and MGMT status into the proposed model to further improve prognostic ability and help guide clinical decision-making.

Abstract: Electronic health records (EHRs) have created great opportunities to collect various information from clinical patient encounters. However, most EHR data are stored in unstructured form (e.g., clinical notes, surgical notes, and medication instructions), and researchers need data to be in computable form (structured) to extract meaningful relationships involving variables that can influence patient outcomes. Clinical natural language processing (NLP) is the field of extracting structured data from unstructured text documents in EHRs. Clinical text has several characteristics that mandate the use of special techniques to extract structured information from them compared with generic NLP methods. In this article, we define clinical NLP models, introduce different methods of information extraction from unstructured data using NLP, and describe the basic technical aspects of how deep learning-based NLP models work. We conclude by noting the challenges of working with clinical NLP models and summarizing the general steps needed to launch an NLP project.