MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3040260734 · doi:10.1002/jmri.27251

Benign Neoplasms, <scp>Mass‐Like</scp> Infections, and Pseudotumors That Mimic Hepatic Malignancy at <scp>MRI</scp>

2020· review· en· W3040260734 on OpenAlexaff
Andreu F. Costa, Sharon E. Clarke, Ashley Stueck, Matthew D. F. McInnes, Seng Thipphavong

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMedical Imaging and Pathology Studies
Canadian institutionsWomen's College HospitalMount Sinai HospitalOttawa HospitalQueen Elizabeth II Health Sciences CentreUniversity of OttawaUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health NetworkDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMalignancyMedicinePathologyHepatocellular carcinomaHepatic fibrosisInflammatory pseudotumorFocal nodular hyperplasiaHepatocellular adenomaRadiologyFibrosisAdenomaInternal medicineLesion

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A variety of conditions may mimic hepatic malignancy at MRI. These include benign hepatic tumors and tumor-like entities such as focal nodular hyperplasia-like lesions, hepatocellular adenoma, hepatic infections, inflammatory pseudotumor, vascular entities, and in the cirrhotic liver, confluent fibrosis, and hypertrophic pseudomass. These conditions demonstrate MRI features that overlap with hepatic malignancy, and can be challenging for radiologists to diagnose accurately. In this review we discuss the MRI manifestations of various conditions that mimic hepatic malignancy, and highlight features that may allow distinction from malignancy. Level of Evidence 5 Technical Efficacy Stage 3.

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 score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.050

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.006

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.268 · 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

Citations10
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Magnetic Resonance ImagingSame topicMedical Imaging and Pathology StudiesFrench-language works237,207