MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404221973 · doi:10.1007/s00261-024-04678-x

Patient centered HCC surveillance - complementary roles of ultrasound and CT/MRI

2024· review· en· W4404221973 on OpenAlexaff
David T. Fetzer, Shuchi K. Rodgers, Vaibhav Jain, Alice Fung, Xiaoyang Liu, Stephanie R. Wilson, Aya Kamaya, Robert M. Marks

Bibliographic record

VenueAbdominal Radiology · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMRI in cancer diagnosis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHepatologyMedicineUltrasoundRadiologyMagnetic resonance imagingInternal medicineMedical physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is a leading cause of cancer-related mortality worldwide and is the fastest growing cause of cancer death in the United States (U.S.) In the U.S., current national clinical practice guidelines from the 2023 American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD) Practice Guidance and the recently updated Liver Imaging Reporting & Data Systems (LI-RADS) Ultrasound (US) Surveillance v2024 core recommend semi-annual serum α-fetoprotein and US screening of patients deemed to be high risk for developing HCC. In this article, we will explore the transition to a patient-centered approach to HCC surveillance, including the role of the new LI-RADS US Surveillance v2024 core and the use of visualization score for determining ultrasound quality, the known risk factors for poor US image quality, and the potential options for alternative surveillance strategies when US may not be a viable option for certain patients, including multiphasic computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and several abbreviated MRI protocols.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.313 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAbdominal RadiologySame topicMRI in cancer diagnosisFrench-language works237,207