MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

3 Tesla magnetic resonance imaging with and without corticotropin releasing hormone stimulation for the detection of microadenomas in Cushing’s syndrome

2009· article· en· W1521119957 on OpenAlexaff
Dana Erickson, Bradley J. Erickson, Robert Watson, Alice Patton, John L. D. Atkinson, Fredric B. Meyer, Todd B. Nippoldt, Paul C. Carpenter, Neena Natt, Adrian Vella, Prabin Thapa

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Endocrinology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPituitary Gland Disorders and Treatments
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Nutrition, Metabolism and Diabetes
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMagnetic resonance imagingStimulationLesionCorticotropin-releasing hormoneCushing syndromeAdrenocorticotropic hormoneInternal medicineHormoneNuclear medicineEndocrinologyRadiologyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: We sought to determine if higher resolution 3 Tesla (T) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with or without ovine corticotropin releasing hormone (o-CRH) stimulation would increase the sensitivity for detection of pituitary microadenomas in ACTH-dependent Cushing's syndrome (CS). DESIGN AND PATIENTS: We prospectively identified 23 patients over a 2-year period with clinical and biochemical evidence of ACTH-dependent CS with no lesion (n = 11) or equivocal lesion (n = 10) on 1.5T MRI. Subsequently, two additional MRIs were performed in random order: 3T nonstimulated MRI or 3T MRI with o-CRH in all patients. Three neuroradiologists reviewed all examinations in a randomized blinded fashion. Patients were divided into four groups, depending on the outcome of their evaluation and treatment for CS. Two patients had to be excluded, and so we report on 21 subjects. MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: Both 3T MRI without (P < 0.016) and with o-CRH stimulation (P < 0.013) was significantly more sensitive for detection of pituitary microadenomas than 1.5T MRI for Group 1 (definitive proof of Cushing's disease, n = 10). Group 2 (those in group 1, plus three patients where dynamic/invasive testing suggested pituitary source) also showed a significant (P < 0.012) advantage for 3T. There was no difference between the 3T and the 3T o-CRH examinations for any of the pulse sequences. We did not observe a statistically significant difference in other patient groups [patients with recurrent CD (n = 6) and patients with ectopic CS (n = 2)]. CONCLUSIONS: The results of our prospective blinded studies suggest that 3T MRI of pituitary gland should be considered in evaluation of patients with ACTH-dependent CD when 1.5T imaging is negative or equivocal.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.366
Threshold uncertainty score0.237

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.296 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations53
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical EndocrinologySame topicPituitary Gland Disorders and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207