MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3212257223 · doi:10.1148/radiol.2021211244

CT/MRI and CEUS LI-RADS Major Features Association with Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Individual Patient Data Meta-Analysis

2021· review· en· W3212257223 on OpenAlexafffund
Christian B. van der Pol, Matthew D. F. McInnes, Jean‐Paul Salameh, Brooke Levis, Victoria Chernyak, Claude B. Sirlin, Mustafa R. Bashir, Brian C. Allen, Lauren M. Burke, Jin‐Young Choi, Sang Hyun Choi, Alejandro Forner, Tyler J. Fraum, Alice Giamperoli, Hanyu Jiang, Ijin Joo, Zhen Kang, Andrea S. Kierans, Hyo‐Jin Kang, Gaurav Khatri, Jung Hoon Kim, Myeong‐Jin Kim, So Yeon Kim, Yeun‐Yoon Kim, Heejin Kwon, Jeong Min Lee, Sara Lewis, Katrina McGinty, Lorenzo Mulazzani, Mi‐Suk Park, Fabio Piscaglia, Joanna Podgórska, Caecilia S. Reiner, Maxime Ronot, Grzegorz Rosiak, Bin Song, Ji Soo Song, An Tang, Eleonora Terzi, Jin Wang, Wei Wang, Stephanie R. Wilson, Takeshi Yokoo

Bibliographic record

VenueRadiology · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHepatocellular Carcinoma Treatment and Prognosis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de MontréalQueen's UniversityFoothills Medical CentreUniversity of Ottawa
FundersFonds de Recherche du Québec - SantéSichuan Province Science and Technology Support Program
KeywordsMedicineHepatocellular carcinomaRadiologyOdds ratioLogistic regressionMeta-analysisDiagnostic odds ratioConfidence intervalCochrane LibraryMEDLINENuclear medicineDiagnostic accuracyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background The Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) assigns a risk category for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) to imaging observations. Establishing the contributions of major features can inform the diagnostic algorithm. Purpose To perform a systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis to establish the probability of HCC for each LI-RADS major feature using CT/MRI and contrast-enhanced US (CEUS) LI-RADS in patients at high risk for HCC. Materials and Methods Multiple databases (MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Scopus) were searched for studies from January 2014 to September 2019 that evaluated the accuracy of CT, MRI, and CEUS for HCC detection using LI-RADS (CT/MRI LI-RADS, versions 2014, 2017, and 2018; CEUS LI-RADS, versions 2016 and 2017). Data were centralized. Clustering was addressed at the study and patient levels using mixed models. Adjusted odds ratios (ORs) with 95% CIs were determined for each major feature using multivariable stepwise logistic regression. Risk of bias was assessed using Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 (QUADAS-2) (PROSPERO protocol: CRD42020164486). Results A total of 32 studies were included, with 1170 CT observations, 3341 MRI observations, and 853 CEUS observations. At multivariable analysis of CT/MRI LI-RADS, all major features were associated with HCC, except threshold growth (OR, 1.6; 95% CI: 0.8, 3.4; P = .19). Nonperipheral washout (OR, 13.2; 95% CI: 9.0, 19.2; P = .01) and nonrim arterial phase hyperenhancement (APHE) (OR, 10.3; 95% CI: 6.7, 15.6; P = .01) had stronger associations with HCC than enhancing capsule (OR, 2.4; 95% CI: 1.7, 3.5; P = .03). On CEUS images, APHE (OR, 7.3; 95% CI: 4.6, 11.5; P = .01), late and mild washout (OR, 4.1; 95% CI: 2.6, 6.6; P = .01), and size of at least 20 mm (OR, 1.6; 95% CI: 1.04, 2.5; P = .04) were associated with HCC. Twenty-five studies (78%) had high risk of bias due to reporting ambiguity or study design flaws. Conclusion Most Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System major features had different independent associations with hepatocellular carcinoma; for CT/MRI, arterial phase hyperenhancement and washout had the strongest associations, whereas threshold growth had no association. © RSNA, 2021 Online supplemental material is available for this article. An earlier incorrect version appeared online. This article was corrected on February 2, 2023.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.413
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.181
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.136 · 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 designMeta-analysis
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

Citations94
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRadiologySame topicHepatocellular Carcinoma Treatment and PrognosisFrench-language works237,207