Sensitivity and specificity of chest imaging for sarcoidosis screening in patients with cardiac presentations.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patients with sarcoidosis can present with cardiac symptoms as the first manifestation of disease in any organ. In these patients, the use of chest imaging modalities may serve as an initial screening tool towards the diagnosis of sarcoidosis through identification of pulmonary/mediastinal involvement; however, the use of chest imaging for this purpose has not been well studied. We assessed the utility of different chest imaging modalities for initial screening for cardiac sarcoidosis (CS). METHODS AND RESULTS: All patients were investigated with chest x-ray, chest computed tomography (CT) and/or cardiac/thorax magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). We then used the final diagnosis (CS versus no CS) and adjudicated imaging reports (normal versus abnormal) to calculate the sensitivity and specificity of individual and combinations of chest imaging modalities. We identified 44 patients (mean age 54 (±8) years, 35.4% female) and a diagnosis of CS was made in 18/44 patients (41%). The sensitivity and specificity for screening for sarcoidosis were 35% and 85% for chest x-ray, respectively (AUC 0.60; 95%CI 0.42-0.78; p value=0.27); 94% and 86% for chest CT (AUC 0.90; 95%CI 0.80-1.00; p value <0.001); 100% and 50% for cardiac/thorax MRI (AUC 0.75; 95%CI 0.56-0.94; p value=0.04). CONCLUSIONS: During the initial diagnostic workup of patients with suspected CS, chest x-ray was suboptimal as a screening test. In contrast CT chest and cardiac/thorax MRI had excellent sensitivity. Chest CT has the highest specificity among imaging modalities. Cardiac/thorax MRI or chest CT could be used as an initial screening test, depending on local availability.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".