MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1987601442 · doi:10.1118/1.3181122

SU‐FF‐I‐03: Computer‐Aided Diagnostic Scheme for Detection of Hepatocellular Carcinoma in Contrast‐Enhanced Hepatic CT: Preliminary Results

2009· article· en· W1987601442 on OpenAlexaff
Z Grelewicz, Kenji Suzuki, Ryan Kohlbrenner, Ademola Michael Obajuluwa, E. Y. K. Ng, Reed Tompkins, M. Epstein, Masatoshi Hori, R L Baron

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFalse positive paradoxHepatocellular carcinomaReceiver operating characteristicSegmentationCADArtificial intelligenceNuclear medicinePattern recognition (psychology)Computer-aided diagnosisFeature (linguistics)DetectorRadiologyMedicineComputer scienceInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose: Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is one of the most common primary malignant tumors of the liver. We developed a computer‐aided diagnostic (CAD) scheme for detection of HCC in arterial‐phase hepatic CT in order to assist radiologists in their HCC detection. Materials and Methods: Our database consists of isotropic arterial‐phase CT scans of 14 patients acquired with a multi‐detector‐row CT system with a 64 channel detector scanner, which includes 16 radiologist‐determined HCCs that were confirmed pathologically. Lesion sizes ranged 6–50 mm, with a mean of 22.6 mm. We developed a CAD scheme consisting of 1) liver segmentation, using fast‐marching rough‐segmentation followed by geodesic‐active‐contour fine‐segmentation coupled with a level‐set algorithm, 2) detection of HCC candidates from the segmented liver, based on a watershed segmentation algorithm, 3) calculation of both 2D and 3D morphologic‐, intensity‐ and texture‐based features of the detected candidates, and 4) classification of HCC candidates by means of linear discriminant analysis (LDA) of the calculated features, with a stepwise feature selection method based on the Wilks. lambda and the F value. The performance of the CAD scheme was evaluated by free‐response receiver‐operating‐characteristic analysis. Results: With the candidate selection segment of the detection scheme, we achieved 100% sensitivity with 15.1 false positives per patient. Of the 254 calculated features, the stepwise LDA selected 45 “useful” features for candidate characterization. Using these 45 features, we decreased the false positive rate to 6.1 false positives per patient, with no loss in sensitivity. Conclusion: In contrast‐enhanced arterial‐phase hepatic CT, our CAD scheme achieved a 100% sensitivity in detection of HCCs with 6.1 false positives per patient. This detection scheme could assist radiologists in detecting HCCs; thus, it would potentially improve radiologists' detection sensitivity for HCCs.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.255 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical PhysicsSame topicRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical ImagingFrench-language works237,207