Clinical utility of bone scintigraphy in patients with limb pain of suspected musculoskeletal origin
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the clinical utility of bone scintigraphy in patients with limb pain of suspected musculoskeletal origin. MATERIAL AND METHODS: All patients aged ≥18 years who were referred for diagnosis and management of limb pain were diagnosed on the basis of history, physical examination, and investigations excluding bone scintigraphy. After the presumptive diagnosis was made (the pre-test diagnosis), all subjects underwent bone scintigraphy, or if they had a previous bone scintigram for their pain condition, the results of that scintigram were reviewed. Then, the pre-test diagnosis was reviewed in light of the bone scintigraphy findings and repeat clinical assessment as needed. The post-test diagnosis was considered either as unchanged diagnosis or changed diagnosis for the region or regions of interest. RESULTS: There were 118 females (54.8%) and 97 males (45.2%). The mean age of the entire group was 36±8.1 years (range: 18-87 years). The mean duration of the symptoms was 17.4±11.2 months (range: 1-264 months). Of the 215 subjects, 212 had a bone scintigram. Of these 212 subjects, none had a changed diagnosis. CONCLUSION: In the evaluation of limb pain of suspected musculoskeletal origin, scintigraphy is unlikely to alter the pre-test diagnosis or affect treatment decisions after history, physical examination, and non-scintigraphic investigations. The clinical utility of scinitigraphy in this setting is low.
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 | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".