MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2030529734 · doi:10.1111/liv.12241

The role of diagnostic imaging and liver biopsy in the diagnosis of focal nodular hyperplasia in children

2013· article· en· W2030529734 on OpenAlexaff
Pamela L. Valentino, Simon C. Ling, Vicky L. Ng, Philip John, Maria Paola Bonasoni, Denise Castro, Glenn Taylor, Govind B. Chavhan, Binita M. Kamath

Bibliographic record

VenueLiver International · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHepatocellular Carcinoma Treatment and Prognosis
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick ChildrenSickKids FoundationUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFocal nodular hyperplasiaMedicineHepatocellular adenomaBiopsyRadiologyHepatoblastomaMalignancyLiver biopsyInterquartile rangeAdenomaHepatocellular carcinomaGold standard (test)PathologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Focal nodular hyperplasia (FNH), a benign liver tumour, has a characteristic appearance on diagnostic imaging (DI) and histology. The role of liver biopsy in children for the diagnosis of FNH is unclear. This study investigates the diagnostic accuracy of DI for FNH in children without comorbidities, compared to liver biopsy. METHODS: A total of 304 consecutive patients (age <18 years) with a biopsied liver mass were retrospectively ascertained (1990-2010). Individuals with a history of malignancy, liver disease or syndromes with increased malignancy risk were excluded. DI and biopsy data were reviewed. RESULTS: After excluding 205 cases, 99 liver masses were studied. Based on histology, the most common diagnosis was hepatoblastoma (46/99, 44%) followed by FNH (23/99, 23%). The mean age at FNH diagnosis was 11.1 ± 5.2 years, with female preponderance (78%), and a median follow-up of 1.35 years (interquartile range 0.54, 4.20 years). 19/23 biopsy-proven FNH met standard criteria for FNH on DI. In 4/23 cases of biopsy-proven FNH, imaging did not suggest FNH. Two false positive cases included adenoma and fibrolamellar hepatocellular carcinoma. On review of original reports, DI had 82.6% sensitivity and 97.4% specificity for the diagnosis of FNH. On blind review, the sensitivity of DI for FNH diagnosis was 81.3% for MRI (13/16), and 53.3% for CT (8/15). CONCLUSIONS: In this cohort of children with liver masses and no comorbidities, a diagnosis of FNH by imaging was highly specific, and MRI was the most sensitive study for its diagnosis. Liver biopsy may be deferred in selected children if the DI, particularly MRI, is indicative of FNH.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.309

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.205 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations29
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLiver InternationalSame topicHepatocellular Carcinoma Treatment and PrognosisFrench-language works237,207