MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2969447018 · doi:10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-19-1030

Quantitative Ultrasound Spectroscopy for Differentiation of Hepatocellular Carcinoma from At-Risk and Normal Liver Parenchyma

2019· article· en· W2969447018 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Isabelle Durot, Rosa Sigrist, Nishita Kothary, Jarrett Rosenberg, Jürgen K. Willmann, Ahmed El Kaffas

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Cancer Research · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHepatocellular Carcinoma Treatment and Prognosis
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersGrand Challenges Canada
KeywordsHepatocellular carcinomaParenchymaCirrhosisMedicineUltrasoundLiver parenchymaCarcinomaLiver cancerPathologyInternal medicineGastroenterologyRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: Quantitative ultrasound approaches can capture tissue morphologic properties to augment clinical diagnostics. This study aims to clinically assess whether quantitative ultrasound spectroscopy (QUS) parameters measured in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) tissues can be differentiated from those measured in at-risk or healthy liver parenchyma. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: This prospective Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA)-compliant study was approved by the Institutional Review Board. Fifteen patients with HCC, 15 non-HCC patients with chronic liver disease, and 15 healthy volunteers were included (31.1% women; 68.9% men). Ultrasound radiofrequency data were acquired in each patient in both liver lobes at two focal depths (3/9 cm). Region of interests (ROIs) were drawn on HCC and liver parenchyma. The average normalized power spectrum for each ROI was extracted, and a linear regression was fit within the -6 dB bandwidth, from which the midband fit (MBF), spectral intercept (SI), and spectral slope (SS) were extracted. Differences in QUS parameters between the ROIs were tested by a mixed-effects regression. RESULTS: = 0.57) were not significantly different in non-HCC tissue among the groups. CONCLUSIONS: The QUS parameters are significantly different in HCC versus non-HCC liver parenchyma, independent of underlying cirrhosis. This could be leveraged for improved HCC detection with ultrasound in the future.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.228
GPT teacher head0.426
Teacher spread0.198 · 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

Citations14
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Cancer ResearchSame topicHepatocellular Carcinoma Treatment and PrognosisFrench-language works237,207