ACR Select Identifies Inappropriate Underutilization of Magnetic Resonance Imaging in British Columbia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: A study was performed to evaluate the ACR Select software in determining the level of appropriateness of computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in Island Health in British Columbia. METHODS: A total of 1228 consecutive CT and MRI studies performed in a 3-day period were entered into a software program provided by the National Decision Support Company based on the ACR Appropriateness Criteria. The program was able to analyze 93% (1141) of these studies. A subset of these requisitions was manually reviewed. RESULTS: The software program demonstrated a very low 2.5% inappropriate rate and manual review showed an even lower number of 0.6%. In a sample of studies deemed to be appropriate by the software, manual review agreed with this ranking in all cases. In addition, in 20% of cases where CT was done, the software program suggested that MRI would be a more appropriate choice. CONCLUSIONS: First, the ACR Select software is a useful tool to assess appropriateness of CT and MRI, although it may underestimate the level of appropriateness of studies labeled as inappropriate. Second, CT and MRI are being ordered appropriately in Island Health in British Columbia. The software recommendation of MRI as more appropriate in 20% of cases where CT was done suggests a lack of MRI resources in Island Health.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".