Diagnostic Performance of Routine Brain MRI Sequences for Dural Venous Sinus Thrombosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Signs suggestive of unexpected dural venous sinus thrombosis are detectable on routine MR imaging studies without MRV. We assessed performance characteristics and interrater reliability of routine MR imaging for the diagnosis of dural venous sinus thrombosis, focusing on the superior sagittal, transverse, and sigmoid sinuses. MATERIALS AND METHODS: = 429). Routine MR images were separated from the contrast-enhanced MRVs and CTVs. Three neuroradiologists, blinded to clinical data, independently reviewed the MRIs for signs of dural venous sinus thrombosis, including high signal on sagittal T1, loss of flow void on axial T2, high signal on FLAIR, high signal on DWI, increased susceptibility effects on T2*-weighted gradient recalled-echo imaging, and filling defects on axial contrast-enhanced spin-echo T1WI and/or volumetric gradient-echo T1WI. Two neuroradiologists independently reviewed contrast-enhanced MRVs and CTVs to determine the consensus gold standard. Interrater reliability was calculated by using the κ coefficient. RESULTS: Contrast-enhanced MRV and CTV confirmed that dural venous sinus thrombosis was present in 72 of 429 cases (16.8%). The combination of routine MR sequences had an overall sensitivity of 79.2%, specificity of 89.9%, and moderate interrater reliability (κ = 0.50). The 3 readers did not have similar performance characteristics. 69.4% of positive cases had clinical suspicion of dural venous sinus thrombosis indicated on imaging requisition. CONCLUSIONS: Routine MR images can suggest dural venous sinus thrombosis with high specificity in high-risk patients, even in cases without clinical suspicion.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".