MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2891162938 · doi:10.4236/ojrad.2018.83020

Online TI-RADS Calculator

2018· article· en· W2891162938 on OpenAlexaff
Jimmy Tanche Wang, Tasha Ellchuk, Rob Otani, Gary Groot, Paul Babyn

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen Journal of Radiology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicThyroid Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of SaskatchewanRoyal University Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineThyroid nodulesThyroidRadiologyUltrasoundNodule (geology)CalculatorMalignancyFine-needle aspirationMedical physicsBiopsyInternal medicineComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Thyroid nodules are common and fine needle aspiration (FNA) or surgery is used to assess for malignancy. Thyroid Imaging, Reporting and Data System (TI-RADS) use ultrasound for non-invasive risk stratification of thyroid nodules and reduce unnecessary biopsies. This project used an online calculator and education to facilitate the application of TI-RADS in clinical practice. Methods: Retrospective review defined the baseline reporting of thyroid nodule ultrasound features. Web-based resource and presentation were used to integrate TI-RADS in reporting thyroid ultrasounds and measure the improvements in comprehensive reporting of thyroid nodules and guiding management. Results: The percentage of thyroid ultrasound reporting using TI-RADS within six months increased from 0% to 27% during the project period. Reports with TI-RADS provided twice as many recommendations compared to reports without TI-RADS. Conclusion: Online TI-RADS calculator and education have successfully facilitated the integration of TI-RADS in thyroid ultrasound reporting to provide more accurate and comprehensive reports and guide management.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.044
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: Software · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.097

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.044
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0080.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0290.015

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.326 · 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
GenreSoftware

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

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen Journal of RadiologySame topicThyroid Cancer Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207