MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388207766 · doi:10.1016/j.jmig.2023.08.022

Comparison of O-RADS 2022 and Simple Rules Ultrasound Classifications to Predict Adnexal Malignancy

2023· article· en· W4388207766 on OpenAlexaff
MJ Solnik, Mostafa Atri, Andrew Nanapragasam, Soodeh Sagheb, Fatemeh Nasri

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOvarian cancer diagnosis and treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMalignancyRadiologyBI-RADSGynecologyInternal medicineCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study compares performance of O-RADS (version 2022) and Simple Rules (SR) ultrasound criteria in a cohort of asymptomatic pathology-proven adnexal masses and evaluates O-RADS and SR inter-observer agreement in a subset of patients. Retrospective Cohort Study. Diagnostic imaging. Consecutive women who underwent surgical resection of adnexal mass(es) between January 2008 and December 2018 at two University Hospitals, a time period when cine clips were available for all ultrasounds. One experienced radiologist, blinded to pathological diagnosis, categorized all imaging by O-RADS and SR criteria. 791 adnexal masses in 762 patients were assessed, aged 18-92 (44 ± 15); 628 benign, 49 LMP, 114 malignant. O-RADS categories were 2 (n=309), 3 (n=165), 4 (n=181), 5 (n=136) with malignant rates of 0.3%, 3%, 25%, and 82% respectively. Application of simple rules criteria identified 561 masses as benign and 230 as malignant. Combining O-RADS 4 and 5 categories as being malignant, sensitivity, specificity, NPV, PPV, and accuracy to detect invasive/LMP masses were 96% (CI:92-99%), 75% (CI:71-78%), 99% (CI:97-100%), 49% (CI:44-55%), and 79% (CI:76-82%). Corresponding results for SR were 96% (CI:91-98%), 89% (CI:85-91%), 99% (CI:98-100%), 68% (CI:61-74%), and 90% (CI:87-92%) with specificity, PPV, accuracy of SR being statistically significantly higher than O-RADs (p<0.0001). AUC-ROC of SR and O-RADS were 0.920 and 0.855 (p=0.01). Inter-observer agreement between the three readers for review of a subset of 172 masses were 0.89, 0.91, and 0.93 for SR benign vs malignant and 0.71, 0.75, and 0.75 for O-RADS (2/3) vs O-RADS 4/5. Adnexal mass assessment with SR performs significantly better than US O-RADS classification in specificity, PPV, and accuracy. Risk stratification by experienced radiologists using SR criteria outperforms O-RADS and can result in better triage to surgical gynecologists and oncologists with an improved rate of predicting malignancy.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.301 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Minimally Invasive GynecologySame topicOvarian cancer diagnosis and treatmentFrench-language works237,207