<b>Infantile Hepatic Hemangiomas:</b> Clinical and Imaging Findings and Their Correlation with Therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study was undertaken to determine different imaging patterns in infantile hepatic hemangiomas and to explore the relationship between clinical presentations, imaging findings, and response to therapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The imaging studies and clinical records of all patients with infantile hepatic hemangiomas from two tertiary children's hospitals were reviewed. Univariate and multivariate stepwise logistic regression techniques were used to determine whether clinical presentation and imaging variables differentiated the type of treatment required. RESULTS: Typical hemangiomas appeared as focal or multifocal T2-hyperintense spheres with centripetal contrast enhancement and dilated feeding and draining vessels. Three atypical patterns included focal mass lesions with central varix with or without direct shunts, focal mass with central necrosis or thrombosis, and massive hemangiomatous involvement of the liver with abdominal vascular compression. In general, patients with focal lesions without high flow needed no treatment, and those with central varix and direct shunts developed severe high-output cardiac failure that responded quickly to embolization. The pattern of massive replacement of liver was associated with hypothyroidism, abdominal compartment syndrome, and a high mortality rate. Multivariate analysis of 55 patients indicated that congestive heart failure was the only independent predictor of treatment (p = 0.005). The presence of a shunt was the only independent factor associated with embolization or surgery (p = 0.002). CONCLUSION: Although the imaging features of infantile hepatic hemangiomas vary to some extent, MRI features are typical in most patients and certain imaging findings are predictive of the clinical course. MRI is the technique of choice in diagnosing infantile hepatic masses.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".