Inter‐Reader Agreement for Contrast‐Enhanced Ultrasound Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System Major Features and Final Categorization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) is used to definitively diagnose hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in patients at risk. However, the user variability associated with CEUS LI-RADS has not been validated in North American and European patients. This study aims to evaluate the inter-reader agreements of CEUS LI-RADS features for, and final categorization of, HCC in patients at risk. METHODS: This retrospective multicenter clinical study used the database of a previous prospective multinational study, evaluating the accuracy of CEUS LI-RADS for HCC diagnosis in patients at risk. All cases were first evaluated by a site physician performing/supervising the CEUS examination. Randomly selected cases were re-evaluated by a blinded central reader. Final diagnosis was confirmed with the reference standard, which was a composite of imaging tests and histology. Cohen's kappa test was used to evaluate inter-reader agreement. RESULTS: This study included 150 liver nodules and 58.0% (87/150) were confirmed as HCC, 4.7% (7/150) non-HCC malignancies, 22.7% (34/150) had no confirmed final diagnosis, and 14.7% (22/150) were nonmalignant. Inter-reader agreements were substantial for CEUS LI-RADS categorization (κ = 0.61; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.51-0.71) and major features assessment (ranged κ = 0.64-0.78), LR-5 (κ = 0.65; 95% CI: 0.52-0.77), and LR-M (κ = 0.67; 95% CI: 0.44-0.90), while for LR-1 and LR-2 categorization was almost perfect (κ = 0.85; 95% CI: 0.65-1.00). CONCLUSION: Our study reported a substantial inter-reader agreement for overall CEUS LI-RADS categorization, especially for LR-5 and LR-M, and major imaging features of HCC, further confirming CEUS LI-RADS as a valuable and reliable tool for diagnosis of HCC.
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 | 0.072 | 0.107 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
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".