Accuracy of transcranial magnetic stimulation and a Bayesian latent class model for diagnosis of spinal cord dysfunction in horses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Spinal cord dysfunction/compression and ataxia are common in horses. Presumptive diagnosis is most commonly based on neurological examination and cervical radiography, but the interest into the diagnostic value of transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) with recording of magnetic motor evoked potentials has increased. The problem for the evaluation of diagnostic tests for spinal cord dysfunction is the absence of a gold standard in the living animal. OBJECTIVES: To compare diagnostic accuracy of TMS, cervical radiography, and neurological examination. ANIMALS: One hundred seventy-four horses admitted at the clinic for neurological examination. METHODS: Retrospective comparison of neurological examination, cervical radiography, and different TMS criteria, using Bayesian latent class modeling to account for the absence of a gold standard. RESULTS: The Bayesian estimate of the prevalence (95% CI) of spinal cord dysfunction was 58.1 (48.3%-68.3%). Sensitivity and specificity of neurological examination were 97.6 (91.4%-99.9%) and 74.7 (61.0%-96.3%), for radiography they were 43.0 (32.3%-54.6%) and 77.3 (67.1%-86.1%), respectively. Transcranial magnetic stimulation reached a sensitivity and specificity of 87.5 (68.2%-99.2%) and 97.4 (90.4%-99.9%). For TMS, the highest accuracy was obtained using the minimum latency time for the pelvic limbs (Youden's index = 0.85). In all evaluated models, cervical radiography performed poorest. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Transcranial magnetic stimulation-magnetic motor evoked potential (TMS-MMEP) was the best test to diagnose spinal cord disease, the neurological examination was the second best, but the accuracy of cervical radiography was low. Selecting animals based on neurological examination (highest sensitivity) and confirming disease by TMS-MMEP (highest specificity) would currently be the optimal diagnostic strategy.
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 | 0.027 | 0.077 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".