MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2099764451 · doi:10.2214/ajr.14.12986

Diagnostic Per-Patient Accuracy of an Abbreviated Hepatobiliary Phase Gadoxetic Acid–Enhanced MRI for Hepatocellular Carcinoma Surveillance

2015· article· en· W2099764451 on OpenAlexaff
Robert M. Marks, Elhamy Heba, An Tang, Tanya Wolfson, Anthony Gamst, Claude B. Sirlin, Mustafa R. Bashir

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Roentgenology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHepatocellular Carcinoma Treatment and Prognosis
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGadoxetic acidMedicineHepatocellular carcinomaKappaRadiologyMagnetic resonance imagingNuclear medicineInternal medicineGadolinium DTPA

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the per-patient diagnostic performance of an abbreviated gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI protocol for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) surveillance. MATERIALS AND METHODS. A retrospective review identified 298 consecutive patients at risk for HCC enrolled in a gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI-based HCC surveillance program. For each patient, the first gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI was analyzed. To simulate an abbreviated protocol, two readers independently read two image sets per patient: set 1 consisted of T1-weighted 20-minute hepatobiliary phase and T2-weighted single-shot fast spin-echo (SSFSE) images; set 2 included diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) and images from set 1. Image sets were scored as positive or negative according to the presence of at least one nodule 10 mm or larger that met the predetermined criteria. Agreement was assessed using Cohen kappa statistics. A composite reference standard was used to determine the diagnostic performance of each image set for each reader. RESULTS. Interreader agreement was substantial for both image sets (κ = 0.72 for both) and intrareader agreement was excellent (κ = 0.97-0.99). Reader performance for image set 1 was sensitivity of 85.7% for reader A and 79.6% for reader B, specificity of 91.2% for reader A and 95.2% for reader B, and negative predictive value of 97.0% for reader A and 96.0% for reader B. Reader performance for image set 2 was nearly identical, with only one of 298 examinations scored differently on image set 2 compared with set 1. CONCLUSION. An abbreviated MRI protocol consisting of T2-weighted SSFSE and gadoxetic acid-enhanced hepatobiliary phase has high negative predictive value and may be an acceptable method for HCC surveillance. The inclusion of a DWI sequence did not significantly alter the diagnostic performance of the abbreviated protocol.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.059
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.088

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.059
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.251 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations132
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of RoentgenologySame topicHepatocellular Carcinoma Treatment and PrognosisFrench-language works237,207