Computerized Diagnosis of Liver Tumors From CT Scans Using a Deep Neural Network Approach
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The liver is a frequent site of benign and malignant, primary and metastatic tumors. Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) are the most common primary liver cancers, and colorectal liver metastasis (CRLM) is the most common secondary liver cancer. Although the imaging characteristic of these tumors is central to optimal clinical management, it relies on imaging features that are often non-specific, overlap, and are subject to inter-observer variability. Thus, in this study, we aimed to categorize liver tumors automatically from CT scans using a deep learning approach that objectively extracts discriminating features not visible to the naked eye. Specifically, we used a modified Inception v3 network-based classification model to classify HCC, ICC, CRLM, and benign tumors from pretreatment portal venous phase computed tomography (CT) scans. Using a multi-institutional dataset of 814 patients, this method achieved an overall accuracy rate of 96%, with sensitivity rates of 96%, 94%, 99%, and 86% for HCC, ICC, CRLM, and benign tumors, respectively, using an independent dataset. These results demonstrate the feasibility of the proposed computer-assisted system as a novel non-invasive diagnostic tool to classify the most common liver tumors objectively.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it