MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405874281 · doi:10.1177/08465371241306297

Do Risk Factors for HCC Impact the Association of CT/MRI LIRADS Major Features With HCC? An Individual Participant Data Meta-Analysis

2024· review· en· W4405874281 on OpenAlexaff
Robert G. Adamo, Eric Lam, Jean‐Paul Salameh, Christian B. van der Pol, Stacy M Goins, Haben Dawit, Andreu F. Costa, Brooke Levis, Amit G. Singal, Victoria Chernyak, Claude B. Sirlin, Mustafa R. Bashir, An Tang, Ayman S. Alhasan, Brian C. Allen, Caecilia S. Reiner, Christopher Clarke, Daniel R. Ludwig, Milena Cerny, Jin Wang, Sang Hyun Choi, Tyler J. Fraum, Bin Song, Ijin Joo, So Yeon Kim, Heejin Kwon, Hanyu Jiang, Hyo-Jin Kang, Andrea S. Kierans, Yeun‐Yoon Kim, Maxime Ronot, Joanna Podgórska, Grzegorz Rosiak, Ji Soo Song, Matthew D. F. McInnes

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Association of Radiologists Journal · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMRI in cancer diagnosis
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de MontréalQueen Elizabeth II Health Sciences CentreMcMaster UniversityJuravinski HospitalOttawa HospitalDalhousie UniversityHamilton Health SciencesJewish General HospitalUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMeta-analysisHepatocellular carcinomaAssociation (psychology)Computed tomographyRadiologyOncologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Guidelines suggest the Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) may not be applicable for some populations at risk for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, data assessing the association of HCC risk factors with LI-RADS major features are lacking. Purpose: To evaluate whether the association between HCC risk factors and each CT/MRI LI-RADS major feature differs among individuals at-risk for HCC. Methods: Databases (MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Scopus) were searched from 2014 to 2022. Individual participant data (IPD) were extracted from studies evaluating HCC diagnosis using CT/MRI LI-RADS and reporting HCC risk factors. IPD from studies were pooled and modelled with one-stage meta-regressions. Interactions were assessed between major features and HCC risk factors, including age, sex, cirrhosis, chronic hepatitis B virus (HBV), and study location. A mixed effects model that included the major features, as well as separate models that included interactions between each risk factor and each major feature, were fit. Differences in interactions across levels of each risk factor were calculated using adjusted odds-ratios (ORs), 95% confidence-intervals (CI), and z -tests. Risk of bias was assessed using QUADAS-2. (Protocol: https://osf.io/tdv7j/ ). Results: Across 23 studies (2958 patients and 3553 observations), the associations between LI-RADS major features and HCC were consistent across several HCC risk factors ( P -value range: .09-.99). A sensitivity analysis among the 4 studies with a low risk of bias did not differ from the primary analysis. Conclusion: The association between CT/MRI LI-RADS major features and HCC risk factors do not significantly differ in individuals at-risk for HCC. These findings suggest that CT/MR LI-RADS should be applied to all patients considered at risk by LI-RADS without modification or exclusions, regardless of the presence or absence of the risk factors evaluated in this study.

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)0.045
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.076
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.985
Threshold uncertainty score0.238

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0450.076
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0150.074
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.253
GPT teacher head0.435
Teacher spread0.182 · 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.

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

Citations6
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Association of Radiologists JournalSame topicMRI in cancer diagnosisFrench-language works237,207