Agreement between magnetic resonance imaging, myelography, and surgery for detecting recurrent, thoracolumbar intervertebral disc extrusion in dogs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Although magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is reported to be superior to myelography to determine the location and site of first time disc herniation, comparison of these diagnostic methods in cases of recurrent intervertebral disc disease (IVD) herniation after a first surgery has not been evaluated. The objective was to compare the diagnostic accuracy of MRI and myelography in a series of dogs undergoing repeat surgical decompression for recurrent IVD extrusion when compared to the gold standard of surgery. METHODS: Ten dogs with recurrent IVD herniation underwent MRI and myelography followed by surgical decompression. Three observers reviewed the images to determine the site and side of the first surgery and the recurrent lesion. Agreement was determined by calculating a kappa (κ) score. RESULTS: Substantial interobserver agreement was noted for recurrent lesion site using MRI and myelography (κ = 0.77 vs. 0.73) and when comparing MRI and myelography to the reported surgical site (κ = 0.73 vs. 0.67). Interobserver agreement was greater with MRI for circumferential location compared to myelography (κ = 0.76 vs. 0.43), similar to what was found when comparing to surgical side (κ = 0.82 vs. 0.49). The previous surgical site in this study had no effect on ability to identify the new lesion. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Despite the limitations of MRI, there was greater agreement between observers using MRI for both the recurrent and first lesion.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".