Incidental Extraspinal Findings at Lumbar Spine Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
In Brief Study Design. Retrospective study of a consecutive series of patients undergoing lumbar spine magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for low back pain at a single institution. Objective. To determine the prevalence and nondetection rate of incidental extraspinal findings (IESFs) in adult patients undergoing MRI of the lumbar spine performed for low back pain by using a structured approach. Summary of Background Data. Extraspinal findings are depicted on lumbar spine magnetic resonance image. There is limited evidence concerning their prevalence, importance, how often they are missed by interpreting physician, and how to improve their detection. Methods. Our study was approved by our institutional review board committee, which waived informed consent because it was retrospective. Lumbar spine magnetic resonance images obtained for low back pain at our institution from January 2011 to December 2013 were assessed by 3 readers for IESFs using a structured approach and their results compared with the archived reports. Repeat lumbar spine MRI and cases with a history of trauma were excluded. A total of 3024 lumbar spine magnetic resonance images were included. IESFs were classified according to the organ involved and to the model adopted by the modified CT Colonography Reporting and Data System (C-RADS). Nondetection rates were determined by comparing the results of our structured approach with the archived MRI reports. Results. A total of 859 IESFs were found in 671 of 3024 lumbar spine patients undergoing MRI (22%). A total of 623 out of them (73%) were categorized E2 (clinically unimportant finding), 192 (22%) were categorized E3 (likely unimportant finding), and 44 (5%) were categorized E4 (potentially important finding). A total of 347 of 859 findings were not mentioned in the archived reports for a nondetection rate of 40%. The nondetection rate for E4 category findings was 38.6% (17/44). Conclusion. IESFs on lumbar spine MRI are common with a significant nondetection rate of 40% using a nonstructured approach. Specifically, there was a significant nondetection rate of 38.6% for potentially important (E4) findings. Level of Evidence: 3 Retrospective study of 3024 patients undergoing lumbar spine magnetic resonance imaging to evaluate the prevalence, importance, nondetection rate of incidental extraspinal findings, and the benefits of reading lumbar spine magnetic resonance images using a structured approach. Extraspinal findings were common. Clinically important findings were missed. Many additional extraspinal findings were identified using a structured approach.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,004 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».