The Proportion of Malignancy in Incidental Thyroid Lesions on 18‐FDG PET Study: A Systematic Review and Meta‐analysis
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate through a systematic review and meta-analysis the malignancy rates of thyroid incidentalomas identified in adults by 18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography, computed tomography (18-FDG PET-CT) imaging studies. DATA SOURCES: The literature search was conducted using OVID Medline, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, Pubmed, and reference list review (inception to April 2013) by 2 independent review authors. REVIEW METHODS: Studies with adults undergoing 18-FDG PET scan identifying a thyroid incidentaloma with definitive histological or cytological results reported were included. RESULTS: Thirty-one studies with a total of 197,296 PET studies and 3659 focal thyroid incidentalomas were identified with 1341 having definitive cytopathology or histopathology. The pooled proportion of malignancy was calculated as 19.8% (95% confidence interval [CI], 15.3%-24.7%) with 15.4% (95% CI, 11.4%-20.0%) of the total cases being papillary thyroid cancer. Distant metastases represented 1.1% (95% CI, 0.6%-1.8%) of the total cases. CONCLUSIONS: Our systematic review and meta-analysis suggests that the incidence of malignancy is high in thyroid incidentalomas identified through 18-FDG PET imaging studies. Thyroid incidentalomas identified through 18-FDG PET require thorough investigation.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it