Artificial intelligence and radiomics in evaluation of kidney lesions: a comprehensive literature review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Radiomics and artificial intelligence (AI) may increase the differentiation of benign from malignant kidney lesions, differentiation of angiomyolipoma (AML) from renal cell carcinoma (RCC), differentiation of oncocytoma from RCC, differentiation of different subtypes of RCC, to predict Fuhrman grade, to predict gene mutation through molecular biomarkers and to predict treatment response in metastatic RCC undergoing immunotherapy. Neural networks analyze imaging data. Statistical, geometrical, textural features derived are giving quantitative data of contour, internal heterogeneity and gray zone features of lesions. A comprehensive literature review was performed, until July 2022. Studies investigating the diagnostic value of radiomics in differentiation of renal lesions, grade prediction, gene alterations, molecular biomarkers and ongoing clinical trials have been analyzed. The application of AI and radiomics could lead to improved sensitivity, specificity, accuracy in detecting and differentiating between renal lesions. Standardization of scanner protocols will improve preoperative differentiation between benign, low-risk cancers and clinically significant renal cancers and holds the premises to enhance the diagnostic ability of imaging tools to characterize renal lesions.
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) | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".