Ultrasound feature-based nomogram model for predicting extrathyroidal extension in papillary thyroid carcinoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The ultrasound diagnostic system for extrathyroidal extension (ETE) of papillary thyroid carcinoma (PTC) has not been thoroughly explored. To develop and validate a nomogram model based on ultrasound features to predict ETE of papillary thyroid carcinoma for preoperative assessment. METHODS: The training set retrospectively included 560 patients from two hospitals with preoperative ultrasound images showing capsule contact and confirmed as unifocal PTC by surgical pathology. The external validation set prospectively included 150 PTC patients with similar features and dynamic ultrasound videos. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were used to identify independent predictors of ETE in PTC, and an ETE nomogram prediction model was constructed to predict the risk of ETE in capsule-contacting PTC. The predictive efficiency of the model was evaluated using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve and calibration curves, and the clinical value of the model was determined through decision curve analysis (DCA). RESULTS: Among 710 capsule-contacting unifocal PTC patients, the incidence of ETE was 66.62% (473/710). Independent predictors of ETE were: Capsule bulging (OR = 8.951, 95%CI: 5.192–15.134), capsule contact angle ≥ 90° (OR = 2.331, 95%CI: 1.405–3.868), capsule contact extent ≥ 25% (OR = 5.708, 95%CI: 3.429–9.503), irregular morphology (OR = 1.856, 95%CI: 1.114–3.094), and coarse margins (OR = 4.198, 95%CI: 2.396–7.352). Based on these factors, an ETE nomogram diagnostic prediction model for PTC was established. The model’s ROC curve demonstrated an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.887 (95% CI: 0.857–0.917), with diagnostic sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of 0.811, 0.799 and 0.807, respectively. The AUC of the external validation set was 0.896 (95% CI: 0.847–0.945), with diagnostic sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of 0.862, 0.762, and 0.820, respectively. The calibration curve showed good consistency between the predicted and actual probabilities of ETE. DCA showed that the model had good clinical application value. CONCLUSION: The ETE nomogram scoring prediction model based on conventional ultrasound features can provide a relatively convenient and intuitive preoperative quantitative assessment of ETE in PTC, serving as a reference for clinical decision-making.
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".