MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2765871919 · doi:10.2214/ajr.17.18136

Fat-Containing Liver Lesions on Imaging: Detection and Differential Diagnosis

2017· review· en· W2765871919 on OpenAlexaff
Andreu F. Costa, Seng Thipphavong, Thomas Arnason, Sharon E. Clarke

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Roentgenology · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMedical Imaging and Pathology Studies
Canadian institutionsWomen's College HospitalQueen Elizabeth II Health Sciences Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDifferential diagnosisRadiologyPathologyNuclear medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this article is to review how fat is detected on imaging and to discuss the differential diagnosis of fat-containing liver lesions. CONCLUSION: Fat is a highly useful feature in characterizing liver lesions on imaging. Although a variety of liver lesions can show fat on cross-sectional imaging, the presence of fat usually indicates that the lesion is of hepatocellular origin. Less commonly, nonhepatocellular fatty lesions may be distinguished by ancillary clinical and imaging features.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.103
GPT teacher head0.391
Teacher spread0.288 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations40
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of RoentgenologySame topicMedical Imaging and Pathology StudiesFrench-language works237,207