Improved Detection of Hepatic Metastases with Pulse-Inversion US during the Liver-specific Phase of SHU 508A: Multicenter Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare conventional B-mode ultrasonography (US) alone with the combination of conventional B-mode US and contrast material-enhanced (SHU 508A) late-phase pulse-inversion US for the detection of hepatic metastases by using dual-phase spiral computed tomography (CT) as the standard of reference. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred twenty-three patients underwent conventional US, US in the liver-specific phase of SHU 508A, and single-section spiral CT. US and CT images were assessed by blinded readers. Differences in sensitivity, specificity, and the number and smallest size of metastases at conventional and contrast-enhanced US were compared by using CT as the standard of reference. Lesion conspicuity was assessed objectively (quantitatively) and subjectively by one reader before and after contrast material administration. RESULTS: In 45 of 80 (56%) patients with metastases, more metastases were seen at contrast-enhanced US than at conventional US. In three of these patients, conventional US images appeared normal. The addition of contrast-enhanced US improved sensitivity for the detection of individual metastases from 71% to 87% (P <.001). On a patient basis, sensitivity improved from 94% to 98% (P =.44), and specificity improved from 60% to 88% (P <.01). Contrast enhancement improved the subjective conspicuity of metastases in 66 of 75 (88%) patients and the objective contrast by a mean of 10.8 dB (P <.001). Contrast-enhanced US showed more metastases than did CT in seven patients, and CT showed more than did contrast-enhanced US in one of 22 patients in whom an independent reference (magnetic resonance imaging, intraoperative US, or pathologic findings) was available. CONCLUSION: Contrast-enhanced US improved sensitivity and specificity in the detection of hepatic metastases.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".