Survey Study on the Experience, Practice Patterns, and Preferences of the Fellows of the Society of Radiologists in Ultrasound for Evaluation and Management of Gallbladder Polyps Detected With Ultrasound
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT: Gallbladder polyps (GPs) are a common incidental finding on ultrasound; however, important differences in recommended management exist among professional society guidelines.An electronic survey was sent to 189 fellows of the Society of Radiologists in Ultrasound. Main outcomes included preferences and current practice patterns for evaluation, management, and surveillance of GPs as well as personal lifetime experience with gallbladder sonography and GPs.A total of 64 subjects (34%) with experience in gallbladder sonography completed the study. The estimated combined total number of gallbladder scans seen by the responders was 3,071,880. None of fellows had ever seen a pedunculated GP <1 cm detected on ultrasound that was proven to be malignant at the time of detection or during subsequent follow-up. All of the fellows used size as a feature to stratify recommendations. The median size threshold currently used by Society of Radiologists in Ultrasound fellows for recommending ultrasound follow-up was 6 mm, and their preferred threshold was 7 mm. The median size threshold for recommending surgical consultation was 10 mm, and the preferred threshold was 10 mm. Wall thickening and shape were considered important factors by 76% and 67% of respondents, respectively.Society of Radiologists in Ultrasound fellows tend to provide recommendations most similar to the American College of Radiology and Canadian Association of Radiology guidelines for management of GPs. Many would prefer guidelines that result in fewer recommendations for follow-up and surgical consultation. Despite a substantial combined experience, this survey did not uncover any case of a small GP that was malignant.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".