Analysis of Gadobenate Dimeglumine–enhanced MR Findings for Characterizing Small (1–2-cm) Hepatic Nodules in Patients at High Risk for Hepatocellular Carcinoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To retrospectively identify magnetic resonance (MR) imaging findings that are associated with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in 1-2-cm nodules detected at surveillance ultrasonography (US) and to propose newer MR imaging diagnostic criteria. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Institutional research ethics board approval was obtained, and informed patient consent was waived. Among 145 consecutive patients who had 1-2-cm nodules that were newly detected at surveillance US, 108 patients underwent gadobenate dimeglumine-enhanced MR imaging. After excluding hemangiomas and unconfirmed nodules, the study sample comprised 96 patients with 116 nodules, including 43 HCCs and 73 benign nodules. MR imaging findings were assessed for signal intensity at each sequence. On the basis of the results of univariate and multivariable logistic regression analyses, several diagnostic criteria were developed by using combinations of MR imaging findings, which were then compared with the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD) practice guideline. RESULTS: Univariate analysis revealed four imaging findings associated with HCC, including arterial phase hyperintensity, portal or delayed phase hypointensity (washout), hyperintensity on T2-weighted images, and hepatobiliary phase hypointensity (P < .001 for each). In the multivariable analysis, arterial phase hyperintensity (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 17.1; P = .003) and washout (adjusted OR, 11.7; P = .007) were associated with HCC. Of the developed criteria, the criteria including nodules fitting the AASLD practice guideline (arterial phase hyperintensity and washout) or nodules having three or more findings were considered most reasonable, showing improved sensitivity (77% [33 of 43] versus 67% [29 of 43], P = .048) and comparable specificity (95% [69 of 73] versus 99% [72 of 73], P = .09), as compared with AASLD practice guideline. CONCLUSION: Alternative MR imaging criteria for diagnosing HCC in 1-2-cm nodules detected at surveillance US that can improve sensitivity compared with the AASLD practice guideline were proposed. A larger study is needed to verify the preliminary criteria in this study. SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL: http://radiology.rsna.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1148/radiol.11101549/-/DC1.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".