Can Quantitative CT Texture Analysis be Used to Differentiate Fat-poor Renal Angiomyolipoma from Renal Cell Carcinoma on Unenhanced CT Images?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine the accuracy of texture analysis to differentiate fat-poor angiomyolipoma (fp-AML) from renal cell carcinoma (RCC) on unenhanced computed tomography (CT) images. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this institutional review board-approved retrospective case-control study, patients with AML and RCC were identified from the pathology database: there were 16 patients with fp-AML (no visible fat at unenhanced CT) and 84 patients with RCC. Axial unenhanced CT images were contoured manually by two independent analysts. Texture analysis was performed for each lesion, and reproducibility was assessed. Texture features related to the gray-level histogram, gray-level co-occurrence, and run-length matrix statistics were evaluated. The most discriminative features were used to generate support vector machine (SVM) classifiers. Diagnostic accuracy of textural features was assessed and 10-fold cross validation was performed. Unenhanced CT images for each patient were independently reviewed by two blinded radiologists who subjectively graded lesion heterogeneity on a five-point scale. Differences in area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) between subjective heterogeneity ratings and textural features were evaluated by using the DeLong method. RESULTS: There was lower lesion homogeneity and higher lesion entropy in RCCs (P ≤ .01). A model incorporating several texture features resulted in an AUC of 0.89 ± 0.04. The average SVM accuracy of textural features ranged from 83% to 91% (after 10-fold cross validation). An optimal subjective heterogeneity rating of 2 or higher was identified as a predictor of RCC for both readers, with no significant difference in AUC between readers (P = .06). Each of the three textural-based classifiers was more accurate than either radiologists' subjective heterogeneity ratings for the models incorporating a subset of the top three textural features (difference in AUC between textural features and subjective visual heterogeneity, 0.25; 95% confidence interval: 0.02, 0.47; P = .03). CONCLUSION: CT texture analysis can be used to accurately differentiate fp-AML from RCC on unenhanced CT images.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".