MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2524236394 · doi:10.1148/radiol.2016160956

Internal Hernia after Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass: Optimal CT Signs for Diagnosis and Clinical Decision Making

2016· article· en· W2524236394 on OpenAlexaff
Marc Dilauro, Matthew D. F. McInnes, Nicola Schieda, Ania Z. Kielar, Raman Verma, Cynthia Walsh, Andrey Vizhul, William Petrcich, Joseph Mamazza

Bibliographic record

VenueRadiology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGastroesophageal reflux and treatments
Canadian institutionsOttawa Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineInternal herniaConfidence intervalRadiologyAnastomosisRoux-en-Y anastomosisSuperior mesenteric veinBowel obstructionOdds ratioHerniaDiagnostic accuracyGastric bypassSurgeryInternal medicinePortal veinWeight loss

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose To evaluate the accuracy of computed tomography (CT) for diagnosis of internal hernia (IH) in patients who have undergone laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass and to develop decision tree models to optimize diagnostic accuracy. Materials and Methods This was a retrospective, ethics-approved study of patients who had undergone laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass with surgically confirmed IH (n = 76) and without IH (n = 78). Two radiologists independently reviewed each examination for the following previously established CT signs of IH: mesenteric swirl, small-bowel obstruction (SBO), mushroom sign, clustered loops, hurricane eye, small bowel behind the superior mesenteric artery, and right-sided anastomosis. Radiologists also evaluated images for two new signs, superior mesenteric vein (SMV) “beaking” and “criss-cross” of the mesenteric vessels. Overall impressions for diagnosis of IH were recorded. Diagnostic accuracy and interobserver agreement were calculated, and multivariate recursive partitioning was performed to evaluate various decision tree models by using the CT signs. Results Accuracy and interobserver agreement regarding the nine CT signs of IH showed considerable variation. The best signs were mesenteric swirl (sensitivity and specificity, 86%–89% and 86%–90%, respectively; κ = 0.74) and SMV beaking (sensitivity and specificity, 80%–88% and 94%–95%, respectively; κ = 0.83). Overall reader impression yielded the highest sensitivity and specificity (96%–99% and 90%–99%, respectively; κ = 0.79). The decision tree model with the highest overall accuracy and sensitivity included mesenteric swirl and SBO, with a diagnostic odds ratio of 154 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 146, 161), sensitivity of 96% (95% CI: 87%, 99%), and specificity of 87% (95% CI: 75%, 93%). The decision tree with the highest specificity included SMV beaking and SBO, with a diagnostic odds ratio of 105 (95% CI: 101, 109), sensitivity of 90% (95% CI: 79%, 95%), and specificity of 92% (95% CI: 83%, 97%). Conclusion The decision tree with the highest accuracy and sensitivity for diagnosis of IH included mesenteric swirl and SBO, the model with the highest specificity included SMV beaking and SBO, and the remaining signs showed lower accuracy and/or poor to fair interobserver agreement. Overall reader impression yielded the highest accuracy for diagnosis of IH, likely because alternate diagnoses not incorporated in the models were considered. © RSNA, 2016 Online supplemental material is available for this article.

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 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)0.001
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 score0.100
Threshold uncertainty score0.404

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.337 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations61
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRadiologySame topicGastroesophageal reflux and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207