MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2128156782 · doi:10.2214/ajr.11.7376

Centrally Infiltrating Renal Masses on CT: Differentiating Intrarenal Transitional Cell Carcinoma From Centrally Located Renal Cell Carcinoma

2012· article· en· W2128156782 on OpenAlexaff
Syed Arsalan Raza, S.A. Sohaib, Anju Sahdev, Nishat Bharwani, Susan Heenan, Hema Verma, Uday Patel

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Roentgenology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRenal cell carcinoma treatment
Canadian institutionsToronto General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineReceiver operating characteristicRenal cell carcinomaRadiologyDiagnostic accuracyTransitional cell carcinomaKappaCarcinomaClear cell renal cell carcinomaArea under the curveClear cell carcinomaPathologyNuclear medicineCancerInternal medicineBladder cancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: The objective of our study was to retrospectively determine the accuracy of CT for differentiating intrarenal transitional cell carcinoma (TCC) from centrally located renal cell carcinoma (RCC) and to define the most discriminating diagnostic CT features. MATERIALS AND METHODS: CT studies of 98 pathologically proven central renal tumors (64 centrally located RCCs and 34 intrarenal TCCs) seen over 5 years at three university hospitals were reviewed by five specialty-trained radiologists who were blinded to the final diagnosis. Multiple CT features and global impression were graded on a 4-point score. The sensitivity and specificity of each feature and of global assessment were calculated and compared using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis. Interobserver agreement (kappa values) was also calculated for each parameter. RESULTS: All five readers recognized intrarenal TCCs with a high diagnostic accuracy (sensitivity, 90%; specificity, 90%; area under ROC curve [AUC], 0.80-0.95 for global assessment) with moderate-to-excellent interobserver agreement (κ = 0.72-1). Six CT features were most diagnostically specific for identifying intrarenal TCCs: tumor centered within the collecting system; focal filling defect in the pelvicalyceal system; preserved renal shape; absence of cystic or necrotic change; homogeneous tumor enhancement; and tumor extension toward the ureteropelvic junction (sensitivity, 68-82%; specificity, 79-89%; AUC, 0.75-0.84). There was moderate-to-good agreement among the readers over all these features (κ = 0.44-0.69). CONCLUSION: Intrarenal TCC can be recognized with a high accuracy on CT; global impression showed the best diagnostic performance. A solid, homogeneously enhancing mass that is centered on the collecting system and extends toward the ureteropelvic junction combined with a focal pelvicalyceal filling defect and preserved renal outline is more likely to be an intrarenal TCC than a centrally located RCC.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.215 · 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

Citations66
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of RoentgenologySame topicRenal cell carcinoma treatmentFrench-language works237,207