Rate of Discordant Findings in Bilateral Temporal Artery Biopsy to Diagnose Giant Cell Arteritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine to what extent performing simultaneous bilateral temporal artery biopsies might increase the diagnostic sensitivity in giant cell arteritis (GCA). METHODS: In total 173 consecutive pathology reports of temporal artery biopsies were reviewed for histological findings by a single pathologist. The rate of discordance of biopsy results was calculated in patients with GCA. RESULTS: Biopsies were performed bilaterally and simultaneously in 132 cases; 51 had positive results. In 38 the biopsy was positive on both sides (concordant results), while in 13 patients only one side was positive (discordant results), reaching a discordance rate of 13/51=0.255. Therefore 12.7% of the patients (one-half of the discordance rate) could have been misdiagnosed as biopsy-negative had a biopsy been done only unilaterally in those 51 cases. CONCLUSION: These data suggest that performing bilateral temporal artery biopsies increases the diagnostic sensitivity of the procedure by up to 12.7%, compared to unilateral biopsies.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.055 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".