MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2025742070 · doi:10.1097/ruq.0000000000000200

ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Acute Pelvic Pain in the Reproductive Age Group

2015· article· en· W2025742070 on OpenAlexaff
Priyadarshani R. Bhosale, Marcia C. Javitt, Mostafa Atri, Robert D. Harris, Stella K. Kang, Benjamin J. Meyer, Pari V. Pandharipande, Caroline Reinhold, Gloria Salazar, Thomas Shipp, Lynn L. Simpson, Betsy L. Sussman, Jennifer W. Uyeda, Darci J. Wall, Carolyn M. Zelop, Phyllis Glanc

Bibliographic record

VenueUltrasound Quarterly · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAppendicitis Diagnosis and Management
Canadian institutionsToronto General HospitalSunnybrook Health Science CentreHealth Sciences CentreMcGill UniversityWomen's College Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePelvic painEtiologyRadiologyDifferential diagnosisMagnetic resonance imagingGuidelinePelvisMedical diagnosisIntensive care medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Acute pelvic pain in premenopausal women frequently poses a diagnostic dilemma. These patients may exhibit nonspecific signs and symptoms such as nausea, vomiting and leukocytosis. The cause of pelvic pain includes a myriad of diagnostic possibilities such as obstetric, gynecologic, urologic, gastrointestinal, and vascular etiologies. The choice of the imaging modality is usually determined by a suspected clinical differential diagnosis. Thus the patient should undergo careful evaluation and the suspected differential diagnosis should be narrowed before an optimal imaging modality is chosen. Transvaginal and transabdominal pelvic sonography is the modality of choice, to assess for pelvic pain, when an obstetric or gynecologic etiology is suspected and computed tomography is often more useful when gastrointestinal or genitourinary pathology is thought to be more likely. Magnetic resonance imaging, when available in the acute setting, is favored over computed tomography for assessing pregnant patients for nongynecologic etiologies owing to its lack of ionizing radiation.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)0.002
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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.375
Threshold uncertainty score0.613

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.266 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations74
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUltrasound QuarterlySame topicAppendicitis Diagnosis and ManagementFrench-language works237,207