Value of the Unenhanced Phase for Detection of Hepatocellular Carcinomas 3 cm or Less When Performing Multiphase Computed Tomography in Patients With Cirrhosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether unenhanced images are of added benefit to dual-phase computed tomography (CT) for detection of hepatocellular carcinomas (HCCs) 3 cm or less. METHODS: Thirty-six patients with cirrhosis underwent unenhanced, arterial and portal venous phase CT, 17 with pathologically proven HCCs 3 cm or less and 19 without HCC. Two radiologists reviewed dual-phase images with and without unenhanced images. Presence or absence of HCC in each segment (n = 324) and subjective added benefit of unenhanced images were recorded. RESULTS: For readers 1 and 2, unenhanced CT was subjectively helpful in 16 (5%) of 324 and 23 (7%) of 324 segments. Sensitivity and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve were identical for dual-phase versus triple-phase images for reader 1 (82.4% and 0.882) and reader 2 (100% and 0.997). CONCLUSIONS: Addition of unenhanced to dual-phase CT does not statistically significantly increase the diagnostic accuracy or sensitivity for HCCs 3 cm or less.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".