Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound for Hepatocellular Carcinoma Diagnosis— <i>AJR</i> Expert Panel Narrative Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Expert Panel Narrative Review provides practical insights on the use of CEUS for the diagnosis of HCC across populations, including individuals at high risk for HCC, individuals with metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease, and individuals not at high risk for HCC. Considerations addressed with respect to high-risk patients include CEUS diagnostic criteria for HCC, use of CEUS for differentiating HCC from non-HCC malignancy, use of CEUS for small (≤ 2 cm) lesions, use of CEUS for characterizing occult lesions on B-mode ultrasound, and use of CEUS for indeterminate lesions on CT or MRI. Representative literature addressing the use of CEUS for HCC diagnosis and gaps in knowledge requiring further investigation are highlighted. Throughout these discussions, the article distinguishes two broad types of ultrasound contrast agents used for liver imaging: pure blood-pool agents and a combined blood-pool and Kupffer-cell agent. Additional topics include the use of CEUS for treatment response assessment after nonradiation therapies and implications of artificial intelligence technologies. The article concludes with a series of consensus statements from the author panel.
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 | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.004 |
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".