Focal Liver Masses: Enhancement Patterns on Contrast-enhanced Images—Concordance of US Scans with CT Scans and MR Images
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To assess prospectively the concordance of enhancement patterns of focal liver masses on contrast material-enhanced ultrasonographic (US) scans with patterns on contrast-enhanced computed tomographic (CT) scans or magnetic resonance (MR) images. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study was approved by the institutional review board; patients gave informed consent. Contrast-enhanced US and contrast-enhanced CT or MR imaging were performed in 135 patients (62 men, 73 women; mean age, 51 years) with 144 confirmed liver masses. Masses included 49 hepatocellular carcinomas, 13 metastases, 30 hemangiomas, 41 lesions of focal nodular hyperplasia, and 11 others. Randomized image sets from each modality were shown independently to three blinded readers, who answered identical questions about enhancement of the lesion and liver in the arterial and portal venous phases and changes with time. Concordance for modalities was calculated from answers of readers and consensus answers between readers, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The kappa values were calculated for interreader agreement. RESULTS: Features of arterial phase enhancement showed concordance of more than 76% for modalities. The highest concordance of 92% (132 of 144), with 95% CI of 86% and 95% (kappa>0.84), was for the presence of peripheral pools and centripetal progression. Concordance in the portal venous phase was lower, with agreement for predominant enhancement of the lesion in 61% (86 of 142), with 95% CI of 52% and 68% (kappa>0.83). Portal venous phase washout occurred in 75% (106 of 142), with 95% CI of 67% and 81% (kappa>0.81). The majority of discordances were for malignancies for which only US depicted no sustained enhancement in the portal venous phase. CONCLUSION: US shows high concordance with CT or MR imaging, especially for the arterial phase. Discordance in the portal venous phase may reflect the tendency of CT and MR contrast agents, unlike microbubbles, to diffuse into interstitium.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".