Interobserver agreement and diagnostic accuracy of brain magnetic resonance imaging in dogs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate interobserver agreement and diagnostic accuracy of brain MRI in dogs. DESIGN: Evaluation study. ANIMALS: 44 dogs. PROCEDURES: 5 board-certified veterinary radiologists with variable MRI experience interpreted transverse T2-weighted (T2w), T2w fluid-attenuated inversion recovery (FLAIR), and T1-weighted-FLAIR; transverse, sagittal, and dorsal T2w; and T1-weighted-FLAIR postcontrast brain sequences (1.5 T). Several imaging parameters were scored, including the following: lesion (present or absent), lesion characteristics (axial localization, mass effect, edema, hemorrhage, and cavitation), contrast enhancement characteristics, and most likely diagnosis (normal, neoplastic, inflammatory, vascular, metabolic or toxic, or other). Magnetic resonance imaging diagnoses were determined initially without patient information and then repeated, providing history and signalment. For all cases and readers, MRI diagnoses were compared with final diagnoses established with results from histologic examination (when available) or with other pertinent clinical data (CSF analysis, clinical response to treatment, or MRI follow-up). Magnetic resonance scores were compared between examiners with κ statistics. RESULTS: Reading agreement was substantial to almost perfect (0.64 < κ < 0.86) when identifying a brain lesion on MRI; fair to moderate (0.14 < κ < 0.60) when interpreting hemorrhage, edema, and pattern of contrast enhancement; fair to substantial (0.22 < κ < 0.74) for dural tail sign and categorization of margins of enhancement; and moderate to substantial (0.40 < κ < 0.78) for axial localization, presence of mass effect, cavitation, intensity, and distribution of enhancement. Interobserver agreement was moderate to substantial for categories of diagnosis (0.56 < κ < 0.69), and agreement with the final diagnosis was substantial regardless of whether patient information was (0.65 < κ < 0.76) or was not (0.65 < κ < 0.68) provided. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The present study found that whereas some MRI features such as edema and hemorrhage were interpreted less consistently, radiologists were reasonably constant and accurate when providing diagnoses.
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 | 0.034 | 0.074 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".