MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2888133834 · doi:10.5114/pjr.2018.77790

Faster magnetic resonance imaging in emergency room patients with right lower quadrant pain and suspected acute appendicitis

2018· article· en· W2888133834 on OpenAlexaff
Memoona Mian, Faisal Khosa, Ismail Tawakol Ali, Patrick D. McLaughlin, Darren Klass, Silvia D. Chang, Savvas Nicolaou

Bibliographic record

VenuePolish Journal of Radiology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAppendicitis Diagnosis and Management
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science CentreVancouver General Hospital
FundersRadiological Society of North America
KeywordsMedicineMagnetic resonance imagingAppendicitisAcute appendicitisQuadrant (abdomen)Cardiac imagingEmergency departmentEmergency physicianRadiologyNuclear medicineGeneral surgerySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: Emergency Departments (ED) are becoming busier, with a resultant increase in the number of imaging referrals. The purpose of this study was to assess the diagnostic accuracy of an abbreviated two sequence magnetic resonance (MR) protocol for evaluating ED patients with right lower quadrant pain and suspected acute appendicitis, with a view to expediting patient turnaround times and imaging costs. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Fifty patients (49 females, one male; mean age 25.4 ± 5.2 years) who underwent ED MR imaging from July 2014 to March 2015 for right lower quadrant pain were retrospectively reviewed. MR abdomen/pelvis was performed on 1.5 T MR obtaining axial T1 gradient echo in/out of phase, transverse fast spin echo T2 with fat sat/motion correction, axial/coronal T2 HASTE (half-Fourier acquisition single-shot turbo spin-echo), and axial DWI (diffusion-weighted imaging) sequences. Images were reviewed by two fellowship-trained radiologists on a five-point confidence scale. Mean acquisition/interpretation times for the standard departmental protocol and the proposed abbreviated MR protocol (comprising T2 HASTE and DWI images) were calculated. Sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic accuracy for the abbreviated protocol against the full protocol were also calculated. RESULTS: Mean scanning time for abbreviated protocol and standard protocol was calculated to be 21.1 minutes and 40.5 minutes, respectively. Mean interpretation time for abbreviated protocol for reader one and two was 4.1 ± 1.5 minutes and 4.5 ± 1.4 minutes, respectively, and for standard protocol was 8.1 ± 1.8 minutes and 7.1 ± 1.4 minutes, respectively. Sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy for the FAST protocol were calculated to be 100% each for reader one and 75%, 100%, and 94%, respectively, for reader two. CONCLUSIONS: The proposed abbreviated MR protocol has comparable diagnostic accuracy in diagnosing ED patients with right lower quadrant pain, with significant reduction in imaging/interpretation times. It thus has the potential to be implemented in ED imaging with significant reduction in patient turnaround times and costs.

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)0.000
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 score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.972

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.230 · 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

Citations9
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePolish Journal of RadiologySame topicAppendicitis Diagnosis and ManagementFrench-language works237,207