MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3180234136 · doi:10.1002/jmri.27824

Data‐Driven Modification of the <scp>LI‐RADS</scp> Major Feature System on Gadoxetate Disodium‐Enhanced <scp>MRI</scp>: Toward Better Sensitivity and Simplicity

2021· article· en· W3180234136 on OpenAlexaff
Hanyu Jiang, Bin Song, Yun Qin, Yi Wei, Meghana Konanur, Yuanan Wu, Islam Zaki, Matthew D. F. McInnes, Kyle J. Lafata, Mustafa R. Bashir

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHepatocellular Carcinoma Treatment and Prognosis
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMagnetic resonance imagingMcNemar's testRadiologyInterquartile rangeNuclear medicineAlgorithmComputer scienceInternal medicineMathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) is widely accepted as a reliable diagnostic scheme for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in at-risk patients. However, its application is hampered by substantial complexity and suboptimal diagnostic sensitivity. PURPOSE: To propose data-driven modifications to the LI-RADS version 2018 (v2018) major feature system (rLI-RADS) on gadoxetate disodium (EOB)-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to improve sensitivity and simplicity while maintaining high positive predictive value (PPV) for detecting HCC. STUDY TYPE: Retrospective. POPULATION: Two hundred and twenty-four consecutive at-risk patients (training dataset: 169, independent testing dataset: 55) with 742 LR-3 to LR-5 liver observations (HCC: N = 498 [67%]) were analyzed from a prospective observational registry collected between July 2015 and September 2018. FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE: 3.0 T/T2-weighted fast spin-echo, diffusion-weighted spin-echo based echo-planar and three-dimensional (3D) T1-weighted gradient echo sequences. ASSESSMENT: All images were evaluated by three independent abdominal radiologists who were blinded to all clinical, pathological, and follow-up information. Composite reference standards of either histopathology or imaging follow-up were used. STATISTICAL TESTS: In the training dataset, LI-RADS v2018 major features were used to develop rLI-RADS based on their associated PPV for HCC. In an independent testing set, diagnostic performances of LI-RADS v2018 and rLI-RADS were computed using a generalized estimating equation model and compared with McNemar's test. A P value <0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: The median (interquartile range) size of liver observations was 13 mm (7-27 mm). The diagnostic table for rLI-RADS encompassed 9 cells, as opposed to 16 cells for LI-RADS v2018. In the testing set, compared to LI-RADS v2018, rLI-RADS category 5 demonstrated a significantly superior sensitivity (76% vs. 61%) while maintaining comparably high PPV (92.5% vs. 94.1%, P = 0.126). DATA CONCLUSION: Compared with LI-RADS v2018, rLI-RADS demonstrated improved simplicity and significantly superior diagnostic sensitivity for HCC in at-risk patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3 TECHNICAL EFFICACY STAGE: 2.

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)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.030
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 score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.095

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.030
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.219 · 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

Citations16
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Magnetic Resonance ImagingSame topicHepatocellular Carcinoma Treatment and PrognosisFrench-language works237,207