The Value of “Liver Windows” Settings in the Detection of Small Renal Cell Carcinomas on Unenhanced Computed Tomography
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess if "liver window" settings improve the conspicuity of small renal cell carcinomas (RCC). METHODS: Patients were analysed from our institution's pathology-confirmed RCC database that included the following: (1) stage T1a RCCs, (2) an unenhanced computed tomography (CT) abdomen performed ≤ 6 months before histologic diagnosis, and (3) age ≥ 17 years. Patients with multiple tumours, prior nephrectomy, von Hippel-Lindau disease, and polycystic kidney disease were excluded. The unenhanced CT was analysed, and the tumour locations were confirmed by using corresponding contrast-enhanced CT or magnetic resonance imaging studies. Representative single-slice axial, coronal, and sagittal unenhanced CT images were acquired in "soft tissue windows" (width, 400 Hounsfield unit (HU); level, 40 HU) and liver windows (width, 150 HU; level, 88 HU). In addition, single-slice axial, coronal, and sagittal unenhanced CT images of nontumourous renal tissue (obtained from the same cases) were acquired in soft tissue windows and liver windows. These data sets were randomized, unpaired, and were presented independently to 3 blinded radiologists for analysis. The presence or absence of suspicious findings for tumour was scored on a 5-point confidence scale. RESULTS: Eighty-three of 415 patients met the study criteria. Receiver operating characteristics (ROC) analysis, t test analysis, and kappa analysis were used. ROC analysis showed statistically superior diagnostic performance for liver windows compared with soft tissue windows (area under the curve of 0.923 vs 0.879; P = .0002). Kappa statistics showed "good" vs "moderate" agreement between readers for liver windows compared with soft tissue windows. CONCLUSION: Use of liver windows settings improves the detection of small RCCs on the unenhanced CT.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".