MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2140464068 · doi:10.1148/radiol.12112152

Extraspinal Findings at Lumbar Spine CT Examinations: Prevalence and Clinical Importance

2012· article· en· W2140464068 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 · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHematological disorders and diagnostics
Canadian institutionsLondon Health Sciences Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRadiologyLumbarInstitutional review boardMalignancySurgeryPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: To prospectively determine the prevalence and clinical importance of extraspinal abnormalities in adult outpatients undergoing computed tomography (CT) of the lumbar spine. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Institutional review board approval was obtained for this prospective study. Informed consent was obtained from 400 consecutive adult outpatients (mean age, 49 years; 212 male and 188 female patients) undergoing lumbar spine CT for low back pain and/or radiculopathy. Those with known malignancy were excluded. Dedicated spinal and abdominal full-field-of-view (FOV) images for each patient were reviewed by at least one neuroradiologist and two body radiologists. Extraspinal abnormalities were classified according to the CT Colonography Reporting and Data System (C-RADS). The electronic medical record of the patients with C-RADS E3 and E4 extraspinal findings were reviewed to assess how many of these findings were previously unknown, and the patients were followed up 24-36 months after the initial CT to determine their work-up and outcome. RESULTS: Extraspinal findings were present on images in 162 (40.5%) of 400 lumbar spine CT examinations; 59 (14.8%) patients had indeterminate or clinically important findings requiring clinical correlation or further evaluation. After review of the electronic medical record, the prevalence of clinically important findings was 4.3%, comprising an early-stage renal cell carcinoma and transitional cell carcinoma, chronic lymphocytic leukemia, sarcoidosis, and 13 abdominal aortic aneurysms. Excluding anatomic variants, the full FOV was required to best visualize extraspinal abnormalities in 127 (79.4%) of 160 patients. CONCLUSION: Reviewing the full-FOV images from lumbar spine CT examinations will result in the detection of a small number of substantial extraspinal pathologic findings in addition to many benign incidental findings.

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)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.471

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.311 · 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