Malignancy risk of hyperfunctioning thyroid nodules compared with non-toxic nodules: systematic review and a meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Hyperfunctioning or hot nodules are thought to be rarely malignant. As such, current guidelines recommend that hot nodules be excluded from further malignancy risk stratification. The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to compare the malignancy risk in hot nodules and non-toxic nodules in observational studies. METHODS: Ovid MEDLINE Daily and Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were searched. Observational studies which met all of the following were included: (1) use thyroid scintigraphy for nodule assessment, (2) inclusion of both hyperfunctioning and non-functioning nodules based on scintigraphy, (3) available postoperative histopathologic nodule results, (4) published up to November 12, 2020 in either English or French. The following data was extracted: malignancy outcomes include malignancy rate, mapping of the carcinoma within the hot nodule, inclusion of microcarcinomas, and presence of gene mutations. RESULTS: Among the seven included studies, overall incidence of malignancy in all hot thyroid nodules ranged from 5 to 100% in comparison with non-toxic nodules, 3.8-46%. Odds of malignancy were also compared between hot and non-toxic thyroid nodules, separated into solitary nodules, multiple nodules and combination of the two. Pooled odds ratio (OR) of solitary thyroid nodules revealed a single hot nodule OR of 0.38 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.25, 0.59), toxic multinodular goiter OR of 0.51 (95% CI 0.34, 0.75), and a combined hot nodule OR of 0.45 (95% CI 0.31, 0.65). The odds of malignancy are reduced by 55% in hot nodules; however, the incidence was not zero. CONCLUSIONS: Odds of malignancy of hot nodules is reduced compared with non-toxic nodules; however, the incidence of malignancy reported in hot nodules was higher than expected. These findings highlight the need for further studies into the malignancy risk of hot nodules.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".