Performance of clear cell likelihood scores in characterizing solid renal masses at multiparametric MRI: an external validation study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to evaluate the accuracy and interobserver agreement of ccLS in diagnosing clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC). METHODS: This retrospective single-center study evaluated consecutive patients with solid renal masses who underwent mpMRI followed by percutaneous biopsy and/or surgical excision between January 2010 and December 2020. Predominantly (> 75%) cystic masses, masses with macroscopic fat and infiltrative masses were excluded. Two abdominal radiologists independently scored each renal mass according to the proposed ccLS algorithm. The diagnostic performance of ccLS categories for ccRCC was calculated using logistic regression modeling. Diagnostic accuracy for predicting ccRCC was calculated using 2 × 2 contingency tables. Interobserver agreement for ccLS was evaluated with Cohen's k statistic. RESULTS: A total of 79 patients (mean age, 63 years ± 12 [SD], 50 men) with 81 renal masses were evaluated. The mean size was 36 mm ± 28 (range 10-160). Of the renal masses included, 44% (36/81) were ccRCC. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.87 (95% CI 0.79-0.95). Using ccLS ≥ 4 to diagnose ccRCC, the sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value were 93% (95% CI 79, 99), 63% (95% CI 48, 77), and 67% (95% CI 58, 75), respectively. The negative predictive value of ccLS ≤ 2 was 93% (95% CI 64, 99). The proportion of ccRCC by ccLS category 1 to 5 were 10%, 0%, 10%, 57%, and 84%, respectively. Interobserver agreement was moderate (k = 0.47). CONCLUSION: In this study, clear cell likelihood score had moderate interobserver agreement and resulted in 96% negative predictive value in excluding ccRCC.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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".