Clinical impact and cost‐effectiveness of noncontrast MRI in the evaluation of suspected appendiceal abscesses in children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Noncontrast MRI has been shown to be feasible in children with postappendectomy abscesses and helps guide clinical management, but its role in preoperative appendiceal abscesses is unclear. PURPOSE: To determine the cost-effectiveness and impact on clinical management of noncontrast MRI in pediatric patients with suspected appendiceal abscess, both pre- and postappendectomy. STUDY TYPE: Retrospective cohort study. POPULATION: In all, 82 children under the age of 18 years with suspected appendiceal abscess on ultrasound. FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE: -weighted single-shot fast spin-echo imaging of the abdomen and pelvis at 1.5T and 3T. ASSESSMENT: The presence, location, size, and apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) of fluid collections and the presence of a drainage path was noted by three pediatric radiologists. Imaging time, completeness of the exam, and impact on clinical management was recorded. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was calculated for MRI relative to CT, taking into account hospital charges, radiation exposure, and risk of adverse reaction to iodinated contrast. STATISTICAL TESTS: Descriptive statistics were used. Intraclass correlation coefficient and Fleiss' kappa were used to assess interobserver variation. Proportions were compared using Fisher's exact test (statistical significance at P < 0.05). RESULTS: MRI confirmed the presence of collections in most cases, with alternative diagnosis established in 10 patients (Tubo-ovarian abscess n = 7, Crohn's disease, ileal anastomotic leak, and Birkitts lymphoma each n = 1). MRI showed the presence of a safe drainage pathway in 92-97% of pelvic abscesses and 86-98% of abdominal abscesses compared with 7-10% and 75-81%, respectively, for ultrasound. MR was cost-effective compared with CT, taking into account the direct charges, risk of radiation induced cancer, and adverse reaction to iodinated contrast. DATA CONCLUSION: Noncontrast MR is cost-effective and affects clinical management in a significant proportion of children with suspected appendiceal abscesses. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 5 Technical Efficacy: Stage 6 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2019.
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 | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".