Deep learning approaches for differentiating thyroid nodules with calcification: a two-center study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Calcification is a common phenomenon in both benign and malignant thyroid nodules. However, the clinical significance of calcification remains unclear. Therefore, we explored a more objective method for distinguishing between benign and malignant thyroid calcified nodules. METHODS: This retrospective study, conducted at two centers, involved a total of 631 thyroid nodules, all of which were pathologically confirmed. Ultrasound image sets were employed for analysis. The primary evaluation index was the area under the receiver-operator characteristic curve (AUROC). We compared the diagnostic performance of deep learning (DL) methods with that of radiologists and determined whether DL could enhance the diagnostic capabilities of radiologists. RESULTS: The Xception classification model exhibited the highest performance, achieving an AUROC of up to 0.970, followed by the DenseNet169 model, which attained an AUROC of up to 0.959. Notably, both DL models outperformed radiologists (P < 0.05). The success of the Xception model can be attributed to its incorporation of deep separable convolution, which effectively reduces the model's parameter count. This feature enables the model to capture features more effectively during the feature extraction process, resulting in superior performance, particularly when dealing with limited data. CONCLUSIONS: This study conclusively demonstrated that DL outperformed radiologists in differentiating between benign and malignant calcified thyroid nodules. Additionally, the diagnostic capabilities of radiologists could be enhanced with the aid of DL.
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 | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".