Prevalence of ‘Fat-Poor’ Adrenal Adenomas at Chemical-Shift MRI.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: : To determine the prevalence of 'fat-poor' adrenal adenomas at chemical-shift-MRI. MATERIALS AND METHODS: : This prospective IRB approved study identified 104 consecutive patients with 127 indeterminate adrenal masses that underwent 1.5-T chemical-shift-MRI between 2021-2023. Two blinded radiologists independently measured: 1) 2-Dimensionsal (2D) chemical-shift signal intensity (SI)-index on 2D Chemical-shift-MRI (SI-index >16.5% diagnosed presence of microscopic fat), 2) unenhanced CT attenuation (in cases where unenhanced CT was available). RESULTS: : From 127 adrenal masses, there were 94% (119/127) adenomas and 6% (8/127) other masses (2 pheochromocytoma, 5 metastases, 1 lymphoma). 98% (117/119) adenomas had SI-Index >16.5%, only 2% (2/119) adenomas were 'fat-poor' by MRI. SI-Index >16.5% was 100% specific for adenoma, all other masses had SI-Index <16.5%. Unenhanced CT was available in 43% (55/127) lesions (50 adenomas, 5 other masses). 34% (17/50) adenomas were lipid-poor (>10 HU). Percentage of adenomas with SI-Index >16.5% were: 1) ≤10 HU, 100% (33/33), 2) 11-29 HU, 100% (12/12), 3) ≥30 HU, 60% (3/5). No other masses had attenuation ≤10 HU (0/5). CONCLUSION: : Fat-poor adrenal adenomas are uncommon using 2D chemical-shift signal intensity index >16.5% at 1.5-T, occurring in approximately 2% of adenomas in this large prospective series.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".