MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402581552 · doi:10.1089/thy.2024.0313

Incidental Thyroid Nodules on Computed Tomography: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Examining Prevalence, Follow-Up, and Risk of Malignancy

2024· review· en· W4402581552 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Zhixing Song, Christopher Wu, Júlia Adriana Kasmirski, Andrea Gillis, Jessica Fazendin, Brenessa Lindeman, Herbert Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueThyroid · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicThyroid Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMalignancyThyroid nodulesComputed tomographyRadiologyIncidentalomaMeta-analysisThyroid cancerThyroidInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: The increased utilization of computed tomography (CT) has led to a higher detection rate of thyroid incidentalomas. Currently, there are no widely agreed-upon guidelines for managing these incidentalomas. This study aims to investigate the prevalence, follow-up practices, and malignancy rates of thyroid incidentalomas detected by CT. Methods: We conducted a comprehensive search of PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases to identify relevant studies published before April 12, 2024 (PROSPERO #42024535501). Studies reporting on the prevalence, follow-up, and risk of malignancy (ROM) of thyroid incidentalomas detected by CT were included. Combined outcomes were analyzed using pooled proportion with a random-effects model. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials (RoB 2) and the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale tool. Subgroup analyses were conducted based on characteristics including size of the incidentaloma, CT area, and age of the study population. Results: Thirty-eight studies involving 195,959 patients were included in the prevalence analysis, revealing a prevalence of thyroid incidentalomas on CT of 8.3% (confidence interval [CI], 7.4–9.3). The prevalence was higher in neck CT (16.5%, CI, 11.0–22.1) compared with chest CT (6.6%, CI, 5.3–7.9). Multiple incidentalomas were found in 27.0% (CI, 12.9–41.1) of patients. Of the nodules, 46.3% (CI, 32.3–60.3) were ≥1 cm, and 28.6% (CI, 19.9–37.3) were ≥1.5 cm. Thyroid ultrasounds, biopsies, and surgeries were performed in 34.9% (CI, 26.1–43.7), 28.4% (CI, 19.9–36.9), and 8.2% (CI, 2.1–14.4) of cases, respectively. Additionally, 25 studies with 6272 patients reported a ROM of 3.9% (CI, 3.0–4.9) for thyroid incidentalomas detected on CT. A higher ROM was observed in incidentalomas ≥1 cm (11.7%, CI, 3.9–19.4) and ≥1.5 cm (24.9%, CI, 0–52.7) compared with those <1 cm (0.1%, CI, 0–0.8) and <1.5 cm (0%, CI, 0–0.2). Conclusions: Most thyroid incidentalomas identified on CT are benign. Implementing a collaborative protocol between radiologists and thyroid specialists to manage high-risk thyroid incidentalomas can ensure appropriate follow-up and optimal patient care.

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.038
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.064

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.038
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0190.033
Bibliometrics0.0070.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.062
GPT teacher head0.331
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 designMeta-analysis
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

Citations17
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThyroidSame topicThyroid Cancer Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207