Classifying CT/MR findings in patients with suspicion of hepatocellular carcinoma: Comparison of liver imaging reporting and data system and criteria‐free Likert scale reporting models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) and a criteria-free Likert scale (LS) reporting models for classifying computed tomography/magnetic resonance imaging (CT/MR) findings of suspicious hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Imaging data of 281 hepatic nodules in 203 patients were retrospectively included. Imaging characteristics including diameter, arterial hyperenhancement, washout, and capsule were reviewed independently by two groups of readers using LI-RADS and LS (range, score 1-5). LS is primarily based on the overall impression of image findings without using fixed criteria. Interreader agreement (IRA), intraclass agreement (ICA), and diagnostic performance were determined by Fleiss, Cohen's kappa (κ), and logistic regression, respectively. RESULTS: There were 167 contrast-enhanced CT (CECT) versus 114 MR data. Overall, IRA was moderate (κ = 0.47, 0.52); IRA was moderate-to-good for arterial hyperenhancement, washout, and capsule (κ = 0.56-0.69); excellent for diameter and tumor embolus (κ = 0.99). Overall, ICA between LI-RADS and LS was moderate (κ = 0.44-0.50); ICA was good for scores 1-2 (κ = 0.71-0.90), moderate for scores 3 and 5 (κ = 0.41-0.52), but very poor for score 4 (κ = 0.11-0.19). LI-RADS produced significantly lower accuracy (78.6% vs. 87.2%) and sensitivity (72.1% vs. 92.8%), higher specificity (97.3% vs. 71.2%) and positive likelihood ratio (+LR: 26.32 vs. 3.23) in diagnosis of HCC. CECT produced relatively low IRA, ICA, and diagnostic ability against MR. CONCLUSION: There were substantial variations in liver observations between LI-RADS and LS. Further study is needed to investigate ICA between CECT and MR.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".