MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2797875367 · doi:10.1186/s40644-018-0142-z

MRI features of combined hepatocellular- cholangiocarcinoma versus mass forming intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma

2018· article· it· W2797875367 on OpenAlexaff
Jennifer Sammon, Sandra E. Fischer, Ravi Menezes, Hooman Hosseini‐Nik, Sara Lewis, Bachir Taouli, Kartik Jhaveri

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Imaging · 2018
Typearticle
Languageit
FieldMedicine
TopicCholangiocarcinoma and Gallbladder Cancer Studies
Canadian institutionsSinai Health SystemWomen's College HospitalUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
FundersBayer HealthCareBayer
KeywordsIntrahepatic CholangiocarcinomaMedicineHepatocellular carcinomaRadiologyMagnetic resonance imagingInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Combined hepatocellular-cholangiocarcinoma (cHCC-CC) is a rare primary liver tumor, which has overlapping imaging features with mass forming intra-hepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Previous studies reported imaging features more closely resemble ICC and the aim of our study was to examine the differential MRI features of cHCC-CC and ICC with emphasis on enhancement pattern observations of gadolinium enhanced MRI. METHODS: Institutional review board approval with consent waiver was obtained for this retrospective bi-centric study. Thirty-three patients with pathologically proven cHCC-CC and thirty-eight patients with pathologically proven ICC, who had pre-operative MRI, were identified. MRI images were analyzed for tumor location and size, T1 and T2 signal characteristics, the presence/absence of: cirrhosis, intra-lesional fat, hemorrhage/hemosiderin, scar, capsular retraction, tumor thrombus, biliary dilatation, degree of arterial enhancement, enhancement pattern, pseudocapsule and washout. Associations between MRI features and tumor type were examined using the Fisher's exact and chi-square tests. RESULTS: Strong arterial phase enhancement and the presence of: washout, washout and progression, intra-lesional fat and hemorrhage were all strongly associated with cHCC-CC (P < 0.001). While cHCC-CC had a varied enhancement pattern, the two most common enhancement patterns were peripheral persistent (n = 6) and heterogeneous hyperenhancement with washout (n = 6), compared to ICC where the most common enhancement patterns were peripheral hypoenhancement with progression (n = 18) followed by heterogeneous hypoenhancement with progression (n = 14) (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The cHCC-CC enhancement pattern seems to more closely resemble HCC with the degree of arterial hyperenhancement and the presence of washout being valuable in differentiating cHCC-CC from ICC. However the presence of washout and progression, in the same lesion or a predominantly peripheral /rim hyperenhancing mass were also seen as important features that should alert the radiologist to the possibility of a cHCC-CC.

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.263 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations48
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer ImagingSame topicCholangiocarcinoma and Gallbladder Cancer StudiesFrench-language works237,207