Disseminated versus non-disseminated tuberculosis involving abdominal lymph nodes: evaluation with contrast enhanced CT
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To clarify the anatomic distribution and CT manifestation of disseminated tuberculosis (DTB) and non-disseminated tuberculosis (NDTB) involving abdominal lymph nodes so as to improve the imaging diagnosis. Methods Contrast-enhanced CT findings of 46 patients with documented abdominal tuberculous lymphadenitis, involved by DTB (n=13) and NDTB (n=33), were retrospectively evaluated in a blind review for the enhancement criteria of location, morphology and density of the foci. DTB had miliary pulmonary tuberculosis. Results Both DTB and NDTB involved dominantly omentum , mesenteric, peripancreatic and upper paraaortic lymph nodes, but lower paraaortic lymph nodes were involved more often in DTB (69.2%) than in NDTB (6.1%) (P0.01). The enhancement pattern of lymphadenopathy of DTB was not different from that of NDTB. 97% patients had peripheral rim enhancement, frequently with a multilocular appearance. Combining all criteria, the diagnostic accuracy of abdominal tuberculosis is 90%, with specificity of 89% and sensitivity of 93%. 100% patients of DTB had homogeneous hepatomegaly and inhomogeneous splenomegaly with multiple low densities, 46 % patients of DTB had inhomogeneous kidney with multiple low densities. Conclusion Anatomic distribution of DTB is different from that of NDTB in lower retroperitoneal lymph nodes, spleen, liver and kidney, which was closely related to the infection routes of abdominal TB.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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 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".