Comparison of contrast‐enhanced MR angiography to intraarterial digital subtraction angiography for evaluation of peripheral arterial occlusive disease: Results of a phase III multicenter trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of 0.1 mmol/kg gadodiamide administration for contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography (CE-MRA) in detecting hemodynamically relevant main stenosis (ie, > or = 50% or occlusion) of aortoiliac arteries. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In a multicenter, phase 3, controlled study, patients with suspected or proven peripheral arterial occlusive disease (PAOD) underwent CE-MRA with administration of gadodiamide. Intraarterial digital subtraction angiography (IA-DSA) was used as the reference. The study was approved by all Institutional Review Boards or Institutional Ethic Committees prior to commencement of patient recruitment and written informed consent was obtained from all patients. RESULTS: Independent readers rated 25%-45% of CE-MRA images as excellent compared with 0.3%-6% of noncontrast MRA images. Mean imaging acquisition time for CE-MRA was <1 minute (0.7 +/- 1.9 minutes) versus 10 minutes (10.8 +/- 3.0) for noncontrast MRA. Sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of CE-MRA were superior compared with those of noncontrast MRA in detecting significant arterial stenoses. Compared with IA-DSA, the sensitivity of CE-MRA ranged from 80%-88% and the specificity from 73% to 92% for the three blinded readers, at the patient level. CONCLUSION: Diagnostic results with CE-MRA were superior and more consistent compared with noncontrast MRA for detecting hemodynamically relevant main stenoses in patients with suspected or proven PAOD and compared favorably with IA-DSA as a reference standard.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".