Bibliographic record
Abstract
<b>Objective:</b> To establish a predictive model distinguishing focal mass-forming pancreatitis (FMFP) from pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) based on computed tomography (CT) radiomics and clinical data. <b>Methods:</b> A total of 78 FMFP patients (FMFP group) and 120 PDAC patients (PDAC group) who were admitted to Xiangyang No.1 People's Hospital and Xiangyang Central Hospital from February 2012 to May 2021 and were pathologically diagnosed were included in this study, and were input to set up the training set and test set at a ratio of 7:3. The 3Dslicer software was used to extract the radiomic features and radiomic scores (Radscores) of the 2 groups, and the clinical data (age, gender, etc), CT imaging features (lesion location, size, enhancement degree, vascular wrapping, etc) and CT radiomic features of the 2 groups were compared. Logistic regression was used to screen the independent risk factors of the 2 groups, and multiple prediction models (clinical imaging model, radiomics model, and combined model) were established. Then the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis and decision curve analysis (DCA) were conducted to compare the prediction performance and net benefit of the models. <b>Results:</b> The multivariate logistic regression results indicated that dilation of the main pancreatic duct, vascular wrapping, Radscore1 and Radscore2 were independent influencing factors for distinguishing FMFP from PDAC. In the training set, the combined model showed the best predictive performance (area under the ROC curve [AUC] 0.857, 95% CI [0.787-0.910]), significantly higher than the clinical imaging model (AUC 0.650, 95% CI [0.565-0.729]) and the radiomics model (AUC 0.812, 95% CI [0.759-0.890]). DCA confirmed that the combined model had the highest net benefit. These results were further validated by the test set. <b>Conclusion:</b> The combined model based on clinical-CT radiomics data can effectively identify FMFP and PDAC, providing a reference for clinical decision-making.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".