MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386624292 · doi:10.1148/radiol.230685

O-RADS US v2022: An Update from the American College of Radiology’s Ovarian-Adnexal Reporting and Data System US Committee

2023· review· en· W4386624292 on OpenAlexaff
Lori M. Strachowski, Priyanka Jha, Catherine H. Phillips, Misty M. Blanchette Porter, Wouter Froyman, Phyllis Glanc, Yang Guo, Maitray D. Patel, Caroline Reinhold, Elizabeth Suh‐Burgmann, D. Timmerman, Rochelle F. Andreotti

Bibliographic record

VenueRadiology · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOvarian cancer diagnosis and treatment
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health CentreUniversity of TorontoSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBenignityLexiconRisk stratificationMalignancyConcordanceRadiologyBreast imagingTerminologyBI-RADSSerous fluidArtificial intelligenceMammographyPathologyInternal medicineComputer scienceLinguisticsCancerBreast cancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

First published in 2019, the Ovarian-Adnexal Reporting and Data System (O-RADS) US provides a standardized lexicon for ovarian and adnexal lesions, enables stratification of these lesions with use of a numeric score based on morphologic features to indicate the risk of malignancy, and offers management guidance. This risk stratification system has subsequently been validated in retrospective studies and has yielded good interreader concordance, even with users of different levels of expertise. As use of the system increased, it was recognized that an update was needed to address certain clinical challenges, clarify recommendations, and incorporate emerging data from validation studies. Additional morphologic features that favor benignity, such as the bilocular feature for cysts without solid components and shadowing for solid lesions with smooth contours, were added to O-RADS US for optimal risk-appropriate scoring. As O-RADS US 4 has been shown to be an appropriate cutoff for malignancy, it is now recommended that lower-risk O-RADS US 3 lesions be followed with US if not excised. For solid lesions and cystic lesions with solid components, further characterization with MRI is now emphasized as a supplemental evaluation method, as MRI may provide higher specificity. This statement summarizes the updates to the governing concepts, lexicon terminology and assessment categories, and management recommendations found in the 2022 version of O-RADS US.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0060.006
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.005

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 head0.124
GPT teacher head0.392
Teacher spread0.268 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations91
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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