Pictorial review of the many faces of bronchioloalveolar cell carcinoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bronchioloalveolar cell carcinoma (BAC) has a varied appearance on CT that often leads to an incorrect or delayed diagnosis. The purpose of this pictorial review is to define common CT characteristics that are specific to BAC. A retrospective review was undertaken of 20 CT scans of pathologically proven cases of BAC; tumours were categorized as focal or diffuse, single or multiple, and infiltrative or well defined. Additional radiological features noted include the density (solid, part solid, non-solid), the presence of unaffected vessels within the tumour(s), and the presence of internal air bronchograms. We illustrate cases of localized and diffuse BAC presenting as (i) solitary or multiple pulmonary nodules, with and without air bronchograms, (ii) bubble-like lucencies of pseudocavitation associated with nodules of varying density, (iii) unifocal or multifocal ground-glass opacities, (iv) crazy paving, (v) nodules and airspace opacities with unaffected vessels coursing through them and (vi) lobar or multilobar consolidation and cavitating nodules. In conclusion, BAC may present with a variety of CT appearances. However, there are typical features such as the CT-angiogram sign or air-brochochograms in solitary nodules and in the periphery of larger consolidations, persisting pure ground-glass opacities, unresolving consolidation and the combination of diffuse nodules and consolidation. These features should alert the radiologist to the diagnosis of BAC.
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 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) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".