MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Gynecologic Disease

2003· letter· en· W1992492119 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueTopics in Magnetic Resonance Imaging · 2003
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOvarian cancer diagnosis and treatment
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health CentreMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMagnetic resonance imagingMedicineRadiologyFemale pelvisAdnexal DiseasesLaparotomyLaparoscopyPelvis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The indications for magnetic resonance (MR) imaging of the female pelvis have expanded considerably over the past decade. The impetus behind these expanding indications is multifactorial. First, there has been widespread dissemination of MR hardware and software techniques that allow the routine acquisition of images with high spatial or temporal resolution. Second, the advent of minimally invasive therapies in the management of gynecologic disorders has created a need for increased accuracy in the preoperative evaluation of these patients. Finally, in this era of cost containment, several studies have shown that the appropriate use of MR imaging in the diagnostic algorithm minimizes cost. In this issue of Topics in Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Dr. Troiano reviews the classification of mullerian duct anomalies and associated MR imaging findings. In addition, he dispels a number of myths that radiologists hold regarding classification of these anomalies. Dr. Ascher and colleagues present us with an example of a new indication for an old disease, by providing the reader with an in-depth discussion on the role of MR imaging in evaluating patients with leiomyomas referred for uterine artery embolization. Dr. Sala and Dr. Atri provide us with clear guidelines for the use of MR imaging in evaluating patients with an adnexal mass at transvaginal sonography. Although MR imaging often can be “tissue specific,” failing that, MR is highly accurate at differentiating nonsurgical from surgical lesions, and in the case of surgical lesions, suggesting the appropriate surgical approach, i.e., laparoscopy versus the more invasive laparotomy. In patients with ovarian malignancy, Dr. Funt and Dr. Hricak outline the utility of cross-sectional imaging prior to primary and secondary cytoreductive surgery. Finally, Dr. Chaudhry and colleagues review the role of MR imaging as well as the common imaging findings in the evaluation of benign and malignant disease of the endometrium. It has been a tremendous pleasure collaborating with this international group of experts. It is my hope their efforts will take us one step closer to establishing MR imaging as a critical step in the evaluation and management of patients with suspected female pelvic pathology. I am indebted to all authors for their extraordinary contributions of time and expertise, to Scott Atlas for his invitation to compile these papers, and to Andrea Allison-Williams for her endless patience and invaluable editorial assistance.

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.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.419
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.252 · 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