MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4380841691 · doi:10.1148/rg.220142

Practical Tips for Reporting Adnexal Lesions Using O-RADS MRI

2023· article· en· W4380841691 on OpenAlexaff
Krista E. Suarez-Weiss, Elizabeth A. Sadowski, Michelle Zhang, Kristine S. Burk, Vi Thuy Tran, Atul B. Shinagare

Bibliographic record

VenueRadiographics · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOvarian cancer diagnosis and treatment
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRisk stratificationLexiconRadiologyMalignancyMedical physicsNatural language processingPathologyInternal medicineComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Ovarian-Adnexal Reporting and Data System (O-RADS) MRI risk stratification system provides a standardized lexicon and evidence-based risk score for evaluation of adnexal lesions. The goals of the lexicon and risk score are to improve report quality and communication between radiologists and clinicians, reduce variability in the reporting language, and optimize management of adnexal lesions. The O-RADS MRI risk score is based on the presence or absence of specific imaging features, including the lipid content, enhancing solid tissue, number of loculi, and fluid type. The probability of malignancy ranges from less than 0.5% when there are benign features to approximately 90% when there is solid tissue with a high-risk time-intensity curve. This information can aid in optimizing management of patients with adnexal lesions. The authors present an algorithmic approach to the O-RADS MRI risk stratification system and highlight key teaching points and common pitfalls. © RSNA, 2023 Quiz questions for this article are available in the supplemental material.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.068
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.055
Threshold uncertainty score0.185

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.068
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0090.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.007
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0060.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0550.042

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 head0.223
GPT teacher head0.444
Teacher spread0.222 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations6
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRadiographicsSame topicOvarian cancer diagnosis and treatmentFrench-language works237,207