Can MR enterography screen for perianal disease in pediatric inflammatory bowel disease?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Pediatric Crohn's disease is associated with perianal disease (PAD). Magnetic resonance enterography (MRE) assesses small bowel involvement in pediatric inflammatory bowel disease (PIBD). Pelvic MRI (P‐MRI) is the gold standard for assessing PAD. Purpose To determine if MRE can accurately detect PAD in PIBD, distinguishing perianal fistulae (PAF) from perianal abscesses (PAA), referenced against P‐MRI. Study Type Retrospective. Population Seventy‐seven PIBD patients, 27 females (mean age 14.1 years), with P‐MRI and MRE within 6 months. Field Strength/Sequence 1.5T and 3T; P‐MRI: sagittal fat suppressed (FS) T2 fast spin‐echo (FSE), coronal short tau inversion recovery, axial T1 FSE, coronal and axial postcontrast FS T1 FSE; MRE: coronal balanced steady‐state free‐precession (SSFP), coronal cine SSFP, coronal and axial single‐shot T2 FS, axial SSFP, coronal ultrafast 3D T1‐weighted gradient echo FS (3D T1 GE), axial diffusion‐weighted imaging, coronal and axial postcontrast 3D T1 GE FS. Assessment Two radiologists independently, then by consensus, assessed randomized MRI exams, recording PAF number, location, and length; and PAA number, location, length, and volume. Sensitivity analysis used clinical disease as the gold standard, calculated separately for P‐MRI and MRE. Statistical Tests Comparing MRE and P‐MRI consensus data, sensitivity, specificity, positive, and negative predictive values (P/NPV) were calculated. Inter‐ and intrareader reliability were assessed using kappa statistics. Results P‐MRI and MRE were paired, detecting PAD in 73 patients, PAF in 63, and PAA in 31 P‐MRI. MRE sensitivities, specificities, PPV, and NPV were: PAD 82%, 100%, 100%, 23%; PAF 74%, 71%, 92%, 38%; PAA 51%, 85%, 69%, 72%; clinical 82%, 22%, 37%, 69%; clinical P‐MRI 96%, 8%, 37%, 80%. MRE interreader agreement for PAD was moderate (kappa = 0.51 [0.29–0.73]), fair for PAF and PAA. Data Conclusion Using a standard technique, MRE can detect PAD with high specificity and moderate sensitivity in PIBD, missing some PAF and small PAA. Level of Evidence: 3 Technical Efficacy: Stage 2 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2018;47:1638–1645.
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 | 0.009 | 0.071 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".