MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3195439927 · doi:10.1002/lary.29778

Ultrasonography and Fine‐Needle Aspiration in Indeterminate Thyroid Nodules: A Systematic Review of Diagnostic Test Accuracy

2021· review· en· W3195439927 on OpenAlexaff
Phillip Staibano, David Forner, Christopher W. Noel, Han Zhang, Michael K. Gupta, Eric Monteiro, Anna M. Sawka, Jesse D. Pasternak, David P. Goldstein, John R. de Almeida

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Laryngoscope · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicThyroid Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsToronto General HospitalDalhousie UniversityMcMaster UniversityUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineConfidence intervalDiagnostic odds ratioThyroid nodulesMeta-analysisOdds ratioThyroidPre- and post-test probabilityDiagnostic accuracyLikelihood ratios in diagnostic testingFine-needle aspirationRadiologyMalignancyIndeterminateInternal medicineBiopsy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: Sonographic risk criteria may assist in further prognostication of indeterminate thyroid nodules (ITNs). Our aim was to determine whether sonographic criteria could further delineate the post-test probability of malignancy in ITNs. STUDY DESIGN: Meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy. METHODS: A systematic review of Web of Science, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL was performed from inception to April 15, 2021. Eligible studies included those which reported ultrasonographic evaluations with the American Thyroid Association (ATA) or the Thyroid Imaging Reporting and Data System (TIRADS) in adult patients with ITNs. ATA or TIRADS were scored as low (negative) or high (positive) malignancy risk using a previously validated binary classification. Primary outcomes included pooled sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratios, and diagnostic odds ratio for all sonographic criteria. Studies were appraised using Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies and the data were pooled using bivariate random-effects models. RESULTS: Seventeen studies were included in the analysis. For Bethesda III, ATA had a specificity (0.90, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.74-0.94), but a sensitivity of 0.52 (95% CI: 0.25-0.77). Conversely, K-TIRADS had the highest sensitivity (0.78, 95% CI: 0.62-0.89) with a specificity of 0.53 (95% CI: 0.31-0.74). Furthermore, American College of Radiology and EU TIRADS had specificities of 0.60 (95% CI: 0.36-0.80) and 0.81 (95% CI: 0.73-0.87) with sensitivities of 0.70 (95% CI: 0.37-0.90) and 0.38 (95% CI: 0.20-0.60), respectively. There were few studies with Bethesda IV nodules. CONCLUSIONS: Though dependent on malignancy rates, Bethesda III nodules with low-suspicion TIRADS features may benefit from clinical observation, whereas nodules with high-suspicion ATA features may require molecular testing and/or surgery. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: NA Laryngoscope, 132:242-251, 2022.

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)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.060
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.302 · 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.

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

Citations24
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe LaryngoscopeSame topicThyroid Cancer Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207