Magnetic Resonance Imaging Provides Useful Diagnostic Information Following Equivocal Ultrasound in Children With Suspected Appendicitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: In Canada, ultrasonography is the primary imaging modality for children with suspected appendicitis, yet equivocal studies are common. Magnetic resonance imaging provides promise as an adjunct imaging strategy. The primary objective of this study was to determine the proportion of children with suspected appendicitis and equivocal ultrasound where magnetic resonance imaging determined a diagnosis. METHODS: A prospective consecutive cohort of children aged 5-17 years presenting to a tertiary pediatric Emergency Department with suspected appendicitis were enrolled. Participants underwent diagnostic and management strategies according to our local suspected appendicitis pathway, followed by magnetic resonance (Siemens Avanto 1.5 Tesla) imaging. Sub-specialty pediatric radiologists reported all images. RESULTS: Magnetic resonance imaging was performed in 101 children with suspected appendicitis. The mean age was 11.9 (SD 3.4) years and median Pediatric Appendicitis Score was 6 [IQR 4,8]. Ultrasonography was completed in 98/101 (97.0%). Of 53/98 (54.1%) with equivocal ultrasound, magnetic resonance imaging provided further diagnostic information in 41 (77.4%; 10 positive, 31 negative; 12 remained equivocal). Secondary findings of appendicitis on magnetic resonance imaging in children with equivocal ultrasound included abdominal free fluid (24, 45.3%), peri-appendiceal fluid (12, 22.6%), intraluminal appendiceal fluid (9, 17.0%), fat stranding (8, 15.1%), appendicolith (2, 3.8%), and peri-appendiceal abscess (1, 1.9%). The observed agreement between magnetic resonance imaging results and final diagnosis was 94.9% (kappa = 0.89).
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 | 0.004 |
| 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".