Comparison of MRI imaging features to differentiate degenerating fibroids from uterine leiomyosarcomas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: The aim of this study was to construct a diagnostic model from MRI features to distinguish complex leiomyomas/degenerating fibroids (DF) from leiomyosarcoma (LMS). Methods: A retrospective case-controlled study was performed comparing MRI features of patients with pathologically proven DF or LMS. MRI in 42 patients with DF (control group) and 46 with LMS (study group) was used to generate a diagnostic model. Imaging features reported in the literature to distinguish these two entities were scored for each uterine mass by two radiologists unaware of the histological diagnosis. Inter observer variation and univariate analysis was undertaken. Imaging characteristics identified on univariate analysis were used to build a multi-variable diagnostic model and sensitivity and specificity of this model calculated. Results: Taking the features identified on the univariate analysis, the final diagnostic model was based on AP length ( p = .053), intermediate T2 signal (IT2), volume ( p = .002), and nodular border ( p = .001). When the model was implemented back into the training dataset it demonstrated a sensitivity of 70.7%, and a specificity of 76.2%. The sensitivity and specificity of radiologist suspicion score was 74.7% and 70.4%. In addition, morphological features showed only poor or moderate inter observer agreement at best. Conclusions: Morphological MRI imaging features alone are not sufficient to obviate the need for pathological confirmation prior to non-surgical management of complex uterine mass lesions. Trial registration: IRAS project ID 251778 Protocol number: CCR 4992 REC reference 19/YH/0134 Date of HRA approval: 29.4.19.
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".