Congestive Hepatopathy: Pathophysiology, Workup, and Imaging Findings with Pathologic Correlation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Liver congestion is increasingly encountered in clinical practice and presents diagnostic pitfalls of which radiologists must be aware. The complex altered hemodynamics associated with liver congestion leads to diffuse parenchymal changes and the development of benign and malignant nodules. Distinguishing commonly encountered benign hypervascular lesions, such as focal nodular hyperplasia (FNH)–like nodules, from hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) can be challenging due to overlapping imaging features. FNH-like lesions enhance during the hepatic arterial phase and remain isoenhancing relative to the background liver parenchyma but infrequently appear to wash out at delayed phase imaging, similar to what might be seen with HCC. Heterogeneity, presence of an enhancing capsule, washout during the portal venous phase, intermediate signal intensity at T2-weighted imaging, restricted diffusion, and lack of uptake at hepatobiliary phase imaging point toward the diagnosis of HCC, although these features are not sensitive individually. It is important to emphasize that the Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) algorithm cannot be applied in congested livers since major LI-RADS features lack specificity in distinguishing HCC from benign hypervascular lesions in this population. Also, the morphologic changes and increased liver stiffness caused by congestion make the imaging diagnosis of cirrhosis difficult. The authors discuss the complex liver macro- and microhemodynamics underlying liver congestion; propose a more inclusive approach to and conceptualization of liver congestion; describe the pathophysiology of liver congestion, hepatocellular injury, and the development of benign and malignant nodules; review the imaging findings and mimics of liver congestion and hypervascular lesions; and present a diagnostic algorithm for approaching hypervascular liver lesions. ©RSNA, 2024 Test Your Knowledge questions for this article are available in the supplemental material.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".