MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412110787 · doi:10.1148/radiol.242278

Impact of LI-RADS CT and MRI Ancillary Features on Diagnostic Performance: An Individual Participant Data Meta-Analysis

2025· review· en· W4412110787 on OpenAlexaff
Nicole Abedrabbo, Eric Lam, Matthew D. F. McInnes, Haben Dawit, Diana Kadi, Christian B. van der Pol, Jean‐Paul Salameh, Brooke Levis, Haresh Naringrekar, Emily Lerner, Robert G. Adamo, Mostafa Alabousi, Adam Polikoff, Alessandro Furlan, An Tang, Andrea S. Kierans, Amit G. Singal, Ashwini Arvind, Ayman S. Alhasan, Bin Song, Brian C. Allen, Caecilia S. Reiner, Christopher Clarke, Daniel R. Ludwig, Federico Díaz Telli, Federico Piñero, Grzegorz Rosiak, Hanyu Jiang, Heejin Kwon, Hong Wei, Hyo‐Jin Kang, Ijin Joo, Jeong Ah Hwang, Ji Hye Min, Ji Soo Song, Jin Wang, Joanna Podgórska, John R. Eisenbrey, Krzysztof Bartnik, Li‐Da Chen, Maxime Ronot, Milena Cerny, Nieun Seo, Shengxiang Rao, Roberto Cannella, Sang Hyun Choi, So Yeon Kim, Tyler J. Fraum, Wentao Wang, Woo Kyoung Jeong, Xiang Jing, Yeun‐Yoon Kim, Zhen Kang, Andreu F. Costa

Bibliographic record

VenueRadiology · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging
Canadian institutionsQueen Elizabeth II Health Sciences CentreCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de MontréalQueen's UniversityMcMaster UniversityJuravinski HospitalJuravinski Cancer CentreHamilton Health SciencesUniversity of TorontoJewish General HospitalUniversity of OttawaOttawa Hospital
FundersMinistry of Health and WelfareNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsMedicineMeta-analysisRadiologyMedical physicsNuclear medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In an individual participant data meta-analysis, applying individual CT and MRI ancillary features to Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System categories 1–5 observations did not improve diagnostic performance compared with major features.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.618
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.173
GPT teacher head0.452
Teacher spread0.278 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations4
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRadiologySame topicRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical ImagingFrench-language works237,207