MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4225619356 · doi:10.2215/cjn.14931121

Total Kidney Volume Measurements in ADPKD by 3D and Ellipsoid Ultrasound in Comparison with Magnetic Resonance Imaging

2022· article· en· W4225619356 on OpenAlexafffund
Pedram Akbari, Fatemah Nasri, Shirley Xiaoxuan Deng, Saima Khowaja, Seung Hwan Lee, W. David Warnica, Hua Lü, Anand Rattansingh, Mostafa Atri, Korosh Khalili, Pei York

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic and Kidney Cyst Diseases
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicineUltrasoundMagnetic resonance imagingEllipsoid3D ultrasoundNuclear medicineEllipsoid methodRadiologyGeometryMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Total kidney volume is a validated prognostic biomarker for autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease. Total kidney volume by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and manual segmentation is considered the "reference standard," but it is time consuming and not readily accessible. By contrast, three-dimensional (3D) ultrasound provides a promising technology for total kidney volume measurements with unknown potential. Here, we report a comparative study of total kidney volume measurements by 3D ultrasound versus the conventional methods by ultrasound ellipsoid and MRI ellipsoid. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: This single-center prospective study included 142 patients who completed a standardized 3D ultrasound and MRI. Total kidney volumes by 3D ultrasound and ultrasound ellipsoid were compared with those by MRI. We assessed the agreement of total kidney volume measurements by Bland-Altman plots and misclassification of the Mayo Clinic imaging classes between the different imaging methods, and we assessed prediction of Mayo Clinic imaging classes 1C-1E by average ultrasound kidney length >16.5 cm. RESULTS: Compared with MRI manual segmentation, MRI ellipsoid, 3D ultrasound, and ultrasound ellipsoid underestimated total kidney volume (mean difference: -3%, -9%, and -11%, respectively), with Mayo Clinic imaging classes misclassified in 11%, 21%, and 22% of patients, respectively; most misclassified cases by MRI ellipsoid (11 of 16), 3D ultrasound (23 of 30), and ultrasound ellipsoid (26 of 31) were placed into a lower Mayo Clinic imaging class. Predictions of the high-risk Mayo Clinic imaging classes (1C-1E) by MRI ellipsoid, 3D ultrasound, and ultrasound ellipsoid all yielded high positive predictive value (96%, 95%, and 98%, respectively) and specificity (96%, 96%, and 99%, respectively). However, both negative predictive value (90%, 88%, and 95%, respectively) and sensitivity (88%, 85%, and 94%, respectively) were lower for 3D ultrasound and ultrasound ellipsoid compared with MRI ellipsoid. An average ultrasound kidney length >16.5 cm was highly predictive of Mayo Clinic imaging classes 1C-1E only in patients aged ≤45 years. CONCLUSIONS: Total kidney volume measurements in autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease by 3D ultrasound and ultrasound ellipsoid displayed similar bias and variability and are less accurate than MRI ellipsoid. Prediction of high-risk Mayo Clinic imaging classes (1C-1E) by all three methods provides high positive predictive value, but ultrasound ellipsoid is simpler to use and more readily available.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.274 · 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

Citations21
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Journal of the American Society of NephrologySame topicGenetic and Kidney Cyst DiseasesFrench-language works237,207