Utility of multiparametric renal CT for differentiation of low-grade from high-grade cT1a clear cell renal cell carcinoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To determine if CT can differentiate low-grade from high-grade clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) in cT1a solid ccRCC. Methods and materials: This retrospective cross-sectional study evaluated 78 < 4 cm solid (>25% enhancing) ccRCC in 78 patients with renal CT within 12 months of surgery between January 2016 and December 2019. Two radiologists (R1/R2), blinded to pathology, independently recorded mass:size, calcification, attenuation and heterogeneity (5-point Likert scale) and recorded a 5-point ccRCC CT Score. Multivariate logistic regression (LR) was performed. Results: There were 64.1% (50/78) low-grade (5/50 Grade 1 and 45/50 Grade 2) and 35.9% (28/78) high-grade (27/28 Grade 3 and 1/28 Grade 4) tumors. Unenhanced CT attenuation was higher (35.9±10.3 R1 and 34.9±10.7 R2 high-grade vs 29.7±10.2 R1 and 29.5±9.8 R2 low-grade, p=0.01-0.02), absolute corticomedullary phase attenuation ratio (CMphase-ratio; 0.67±0.16 R1 and 0.66±0.16 R2 vs 0.93±0.83 R1 and 0.80±0.33 R2, p=0.04-0.05) and 3-tiered stratification of CMphase-ratio (p=0.02) lower in high-grade tumors. A two-variable LR-model including unenhanced CT attenuation and CM.phase-ratio achieved area under the receiver operator characteristic curve of: 73% (95% confidence intervals 59–86%) and 72% (59–84%) for R1 and R2. ccRCC CT score differed by ccRCC grade (p<0.01 R1, R2) with high-grade tumors occurring most commonly in moderately enhancing ccRCC score 4 (46.4% [13/28] R1 and 54% [15/28]). Conclusion: Among cT1a ccRCC, high-grade tumors have higher unenhanced CT attenuation and are less avidly enhancing. Advances in knowledge: High-grade ccRCC have higher attenuation (possibly due to less microscopic fat) and lower corticomedullary phase enhancement compared to low-grade tumors. This may result in categorization of high-grade tumors in lower ccRCC diagnostic algorithm categories.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".