MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1986961471 · doi:10.1097/ruq.0000000000000132

ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Infertility

2015· article· en· W1986961471 on OpenAlexaff
Darci J. Wall, Marcia C. Javitt, Phyllis Glanc, Priyadarshani R. Bhosale, Mukesh G. Harisinghani, Robert D. Harris, Nadia J. Khati, Donald G. Mitchell, David A. Nyberg, Pari V. Pandharipande, Harpreet K. Pannu, Thomas Shipp, Cary Siegel, Lynn L. Simpson, Jade J. Wong-You–Cheong, Carolyn M. Zelop

Bibliographic record

VenueUltrasound Quarterly · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGynecological conditions and treatments
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineInfertilityPolycystic ovaryEndometriosisGynecologyAnovulationObstetricsPregnancyGuidelineMagnetic resonance imagingRadiologyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Appropriate imaging for women undergoing infertility workup depends upon the clinician's suspicion for potential causes of infertility. Transvaginal US is the preferred modality to assess the ovaries for features of polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), the leading cause of anovulatory infertility. For women who have a history or clinical suspicion of endometriosis, which affects at least one third of women with infertility, both MRI and pelvic US can provide valuable information. If tubal occlusion is suspected, whether due to endometriosis, previous pelvic inflammatory disease, or other cause, hysterosalpingogram (HSG) is the preferred method of evaluation. To assess for anatomic causes of recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL) such as Müllerian anomalies, synechiae, and leiomyomas, saline infusion sonohysterography, MRI and 3-D US are most appropriate. Up to 10% of women suffering recurrent pregnancy loss have a congenital Müllerian anomaly. When assessment of the pituitary gland is indicated, MRI is the imaging exam of choice.The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed every three years by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and review include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer reviewed journals and the application of a well-established consensus methodology (modified Delphi) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures by the panel. In those instances where evidence is lacking or not definitive, expert opinion may be used to recommend imaging or treatment.

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 score0.075
Threshold uncertainty score0.739

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)0.0010.001

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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.271 · 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

Citations11
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUltrasound QuarterlySame topicGynecological conditions and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207