MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2103945288 · doi:10.1148/radiol.2252011551

Frequency of Visualization and Thickness of Normal Appendix at Nonenhanced Helical CT

2002· article· en· W2103945288 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

VenueRadiology · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAppendicitis Diagnosis and Management
Canadian institutionsSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMcNemar's testAppendixNuclear medicineRadiologyRenal colicKappaHounsfield scaleComputed tomographyPathologyGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: To evaluate the frequency of visualization, thickness, and features of the normal appendix at nonenhanced helical computed tomography (CT). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three radiologists blinded to patient surgical history retrospectively reviewed CT scans obtained for renal colic assessment in 187 consecutive patients. No contrast material was administered. The frequency of visualization and the two-wall thickness of normal appendices were recorded. Interobserver agreement and effect of adequacy of intraperitoneal fat on identification of the appendix were assessed. RESULTS: The prevalence of appendectomy was 10.7% (20 of 187 patients). The means for the three reviewers' sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and accuracy of visualization of normal appendix were 79% (CI: 73%, 84%), 90% (CI: 78%, 96%), 98% (CI: 97%, 99%), 34% (CI: 22%, 47%), and 80% (CI: 74%, 86%), respectively. There was no significant difference among the three reviewers (P >.05) according to conditional logistic regression and exact McNemar test results. For all reviewers, the frequency of appendix visualization was significantly lower in patients with less intraperitoneal fat (P =.01-.001, chi(2) test). The mean thickness of normal appendix if no intraluminal content was visualized was 6.6 mm +/- 1.0 (SD), and the mean thickness, excluding visualized intraluminal content, was 3.6 mm +/- 0.8. The nonweighted kappa value for interobserver agreement for normal appendix visualization was 0.69-0.75 among the three reviewers, which indicated good to excellent agreement. CONCLUSION: Most normal appendices are seen at nonenhanced helical CT. The thickness of normal appendix, when the content is not recognizable, overlaps the values currently used to diagnose appendicitis at CT.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.160
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.257 · 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