Enhancement Threshold of Small (< 4 cm) Solid Renal Masses on CT
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of our study was to determine whether small (< 4 cm) solid renal cell carcinomas (RCCs) enhance on CT below the published enhancement thresholds. MATERIALS AND METHODS: For this retrospective study, we reviewed CT examinations of patients with pathologically characterized small solid renal masses. Patients with lipid-rich angiomyolipomas were excluded. The study included consecutive patients who had pathologically characterized small (< 4 cm) renal masses and had undergone CT during the un-enhanced phase and nephrographic phase (NP). Most CT examinations also included imaging during the corticomedullary phase (CMP); four patients did not have CMP images. The CT examinations were performed on a 64-MDCT scanner. Similar-sized ROIs were placed on each lesion on unenhanced and enhanced images and enhancement (in Hounsfield units) was calculated. Masses were considered solid with a threshold enhancement greater than either 15 or 20 HU. RESULTS: There were 137 masses in 137 patients, 90 men and 47 women (age range, 21-91 years; median age, 65 years). The renal masses were 1.0-3.9 cm (median, 2.4 cm). Of the 137 masses, 117 (85.4%) were malignant and 20 (14.6%) were benign. One malignant mass and three benign masses did not have CMP images. Twenty of the 116 (17.2%) renal cell carcinomas (RCCs) did not reach the 15-HU threshold enhancement on CMP images, nine of 117 masses (7.7%) did not reach the 15-HU enhancement threshold on NP images, and four of 117 masses (3.4%) did not reach the 15-HU enhancement threshold on both CMP and NP images. The numbers of masses that did not reach the 20-HU enhancement threshold were 24 of 116 masses (20.7%) on CMP images, 14 of 117 masses (11.9%) on NP images, and 11 of 117 masses (9.4%) on both CMP and NP images. Depending on the phase or enhancement threshold, 13.6-59.1% of papillary RCCs did not reach the enhancement threshold. CONCLUSION: A minority of small RCCs do not reach either a 15- or 20-HU enhancement threshold and might be misinterpreted as a hyperattenuating cyst. Most RCCs below these enhancement thresholds are papillary 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 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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".