Limited Value of Temporal Artery Ultrasonography Examinations for Diagnosis of Giant Cell Arteritis: Analysis of 77 Subjects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Use of TA-US for diagnostic investigation of giant cell arteritis (GCA) has been proposed but remains a matter of debate because of the heterogeneous findings. We retrospectively evaluated operating characteristics of temporal artery ultrasonography (TA-US) in a single teaching hospital. METHODS: All subjects with suspected GCA had been seen between 2002 and 2008 and had undergone TA-US with continuous-wave Doppler (until 2004) or color duplex ultrasonography (after 2004), followed within 30 days by a temporal artery biopsy (TAB). TA-US findings were compared with TAB-proven GCA and clinically diagnosed GCA. Results are expressed as sensitivities, specificities, and positive (LR+) and negative likelihood ratios (LR-) of stenoses, occlusions, and the halo sign; for the latter, only color duplex TA-US was considered. RESULTS: Seventy-seven patients fulfilled the selection criteria; 13 had TAB-proven and 19 had clinically defined GCA. Stenoses/occlusions were seen on 45.5% of TA-US and the halo sign was seen only once (3.2%) in 31 duplex TA-US. Respective sensitivities, specificities, LR+, and LR- for GCA diagnosis (using TAB-proven/clinically defined GCA as reference standards) were 69%/53%, 59%/57%, 1.7/1.2, and 0.5/0.8 for stenoses and/or occlusions, and 17%/10%, 100%/100%, infinite/infinite, and 0.8/0.9 for the halo sign. CONCLUSION: The halo sign showed 100% specificity for GCA but only 10%-17% sensitivity. Stenoses/occlusions were of low diagnostic value. These observations suggest that TA-US is neither an effective substitute for TAB nor a reliable screening test to decide which patients can be safely spared TAB.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".