scholarly journals Image Analysis and Flow Cytometric DNA Studies of Benign and Malignant Body Cavity Fluids: Reappraisal of the Role of Current Methods in the Differential Diagnosis of Reactive Versus Malignant Conditions

2000 ◽  
Vol 13 (7) ◽  
pp. 788-796 ◽  
Author(s):  
Oscar Lazcano ◽  
Li-Mien Chen ◽  
Cheng Tsai ◽  
Chin-Yang Li ◽  
Jerry A Katzmann ◽  
...  
2019 ◽  
Vol 74 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Michela Campanelli ◽  
Francesca Cabry ◽  
Roberto Marasca ◽  
Roberta Gelmini

GYNECOLOGY ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 69-72
Author(s):  
S.A. Martynov ◽  
◽  
L.V. Adamyan ◽  
E.A. Kulabukhova ◽  
P.V. Uchevatkina ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 62 (6) ◽  
pp. 452-463
Author(s):  
E. Cebada Chaparro ◽  
J. Lloret del Hoyo ◽  
R. Méndez Fernández

2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (8) ◽  
pp. 124
Author(s):  
Kostas Marias

The role of medical image computing in oncology is growing stronger, not least due to the unprecedented advancement of computational AI techniques, providing a technological bridge between radiology and oncology, which could significantly accelerate the advancement of precision medicine throughout the cancer care continuum. Medical image processing has been an active field of research for more than three decades, focusing initially on traditional image analysis tasks such as registration segmentation, fusion, and contrast optimization. However, with the advancement of model-based medical image processing, the field of imaging biomarker discovery has focused on transforming functional imaging data into meaningful biomarkers that are able to provide insight into a tumor’s pathophysiology. More recently, the advancement of high-performance computing, in conjunction with the availability of large medical imaging datasets, has enabled the deployment of sophisticated machine learning techniques in the context of radiomics and deep learning modeling. This paper reviews and discusses the evolving role of image analysis and processing through the lens of the abovementioned developments, which hold promise for accelerating precision oncology, in the sense of improved diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment planning of cancer.


2021 ◽  
pp. 1-24
Author(s):  
Jan M. Wit ◽  
Sjoerd D. Joustra ◽  
Monique Losekoot ◽  
Hermine A. van Duyvenvoorde ◽  
Christiaan de Bruin

The current differential diagnosis for a short child with low insulin-like growth factor I (IGF-I) and a normal growth hormone (GH) peak in a GH stimulation test (GHST), after exclusion of acquired causes, includes the following disorders: (1) a decreased spontaneous GH secretion in contrast to a normal stimulated GH peak (“GH neurosecretory dysfunction,” GHND) and (2) genetic conditions with a normal GH sensitivity (e.g., pathogenic variants of <i>GH1</i> or <i>GHSR</i>) and (3) GH insensitivity (GHI). We present a critical appraisal of the concept of GHND and the role of 12- or 24-h GH profiles in the selection of children for GH treatment. The mean 24-h GH concentration in healthy children overlaps with that in those with GH deficiency, indicating that the previously proposed cutoff limit (3.0–3.2 μg/L) is too high. The main advantage of performing a GH profile is that it prevents about 20% of false-positive test results of the GHST, while it also detects a low spontaneous GH secretion in children who would be considered GH sufficient based on a stimulation test. However, due to a considerable burden for patients and the health budget, GH profiles are only used in few centres. Regarding genetic causes, there is good evidence of the existence of Kowarski syndrome (due to <i>GH1</i> variants) but less on the role of <i>GHSR</i> variants. Several genetic causes of (partial) GHI are known (<i>GHR</i>, <i>STAT5B</i>, <i>STAT3</i>, <i>IGF1</i>, <i>IGFALS</i> defects, and Noonan and 3M syndromes), some responding positively to GH therapy. In the final section, we speculate on hypothetical causes.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document