MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3158887457 · doi:10.1210/jendso/bvab048.1780

The Influence of Incidental Detection of Thyroid Nodule on Thyroid Cancer Risk and Prognosis - a Systematic Review

2021· review· en· W3158887457 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Je Ern Chooi, Abiramie Ravindiran, Saba Balasubramanian

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Endocrine Society · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicThyroid Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineThyroid nodulesThyroid cancerOdds ratioThyroidMeta-analysisInternal medicineMalignancyNodule (geology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Clinically unapparent thyroid nodules discovered serendipitously on imaging for non-thyroid indications are termed ‘thyroid incidentalomas’. The increase in the detection of these incidentalomas (which are known to be very common) has been attributed to the widespread use of diagnostic imaging and the increase in sensitivity and resolution of these modalities. It is unclear whether these incidentalomas have a lower prevalence of thyroid cancer or slower tumour progression compared to symptomatic thyroid nodules. This systematic review aimed to determine the risk of malignancy in incidentally detected thyroid nodules and its impact on prognosis in patients with thyroid cancer. PubMed and MEDLINE® on Web of Science databases were searched from inception to March 2020 for English language articles reporting on human studies of thyroid cancer risk and/or prognosis in incidental and non-incidental nodules. Quality of included studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). Seventeen observational studies published between 1998 and 2018 were eligible for analysis; 4 studies reported on risk, 8 studies on prognosis and 5 studies on both risk and prognosis. In the risk review, the odds ratios calculated from the six case-control studies (3246 patients) ranged from 0.64 to 2.86 whilst the relative risks calculated from the three cohort studies (489 patients) ranged from 0.13 to 6.27. NOS score for included risk studies (n=9) ranged from 22.2% to 66.7%. A meta-analysis of the eligible case-control studies (n=3) showed a non-significant summated odds ratio of 1.04 (95% CI=0.63-1.70, p=0.88). In the prognosis review of thirteen studies, three direct and thirteen indirect markers of prognosis were compared between the incidental (1923 patients) and non-incidental (2639 patients) groups. NOS score for included prognosis studies ranged from 66.7% to 100%. Incidentally detected thyroid nodules were significantly more likely to be smaller, have lower rates of extra-thyroidal and extra-nodal extension and lymph node metastasis, and interestingly more likely to have advanced disease. Other indirect prognostic markers were not shown to be significantly different between the two groups. A meta-analysis was not possible but incidentally detected thyroid cancer had better progression-free and overall survival; this finding may be affected by ‘lead time’ bias. Current evidence suggests that the investigation and management of thyroid nodules should not be influenced by the mode of detection.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.069
Threshold uncertainty score0.610

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.306 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
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

Citations3
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Endocrine SocietySame topicThyroid Cancer Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207