MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4224950722 · doi:10.3390/jcm11092443

ENDO_STAGE Magnetic Resonance Imaging: Classification to Screen Endometriosis

2022· article· en· W4224950722 on OpenAlexaff
Marc Bazot, Émile Daraï, Giuseppe Benagiano, Caroline Reinhold, Amélia Favier, Horace Roman, Jacques Donnez, Sofiane Bendifallah

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Medicine · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEndometriosis Research and Treatment
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEndometriosisMagnetic resonance imagingStage (stratigraphy)TriageRadiologySurgical planningLaparoscopyClinical PracticeGynecologyPhysical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Transvaginal sonography is the first-line imaging technique to diagnose endometriosis, but magnetic resonance imaging is more accurate in staging the extent of lesions, especially for deep pelvic endometriosis. The revised American Society for Reproductive Medicine and Enzian classifications are commonly used to stage the extent of endometriosis. However, a review underlined their weaknesses in terms of complexity, lack of clinical reproducibility and low correlation with surgical complications and fertility outcomes. Thus, to this day, in clinical practice, there is a lack of consensual, standardized or common nomenclature to stage the extent of endometriosis, posing a worldwide challenge. Objectives: The aims of our study were to: (i) develop a new classification (entitled Endo-Stage MRI) based on patterns of endometriosis as observed with magnetic resonance imaging; (ii) compare results with those of the rASRM classification; (iii) estimate the Endo-Stage MRI accuracy to predict the rate of surgical complications; and (iv) propose an Endo-Stage MRI system of triage (low, intermediate, high) that correlates with the risk of surgical complications. The goal is to improve the effectiveness of care pathways and allow for the planning of a multidisciplinary approach when necessary. Patients and methods: A single-center observational study using available clinical and imaging data. According to anatomical locations and the extent of endometriotic lesions, a standardized classification comprising six stages of severity (0–5) was designed. Results: A total of 751 patients with pelvic endometriosis underwent surgery from January 2013 to December 2018 in a tertiary care university hospital. Their Endo-Stage MRI classification was correlated with: (i) the rate of overall complications (grade I–IV Clavien-Dindo classification, (ii) the rate of major complications (grades III–IV) and (iii) the rate of voiding dysfunction requiring self-catheterization lasting more than one month. According to the Endo-Stage MRI classification, stages 0, 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 were observed in 26 (3%), 156 (21%), 40 (5%), 22 (3%), 290 (39%) and 217 (29%) patients, respectively. Using the proposed Endo-Stage MRI system as triage, low (stages 0–2), intermediate (stages 3–4) and high-risk (stage 5), complications were observed in 29 (13%), 109 (34.9%) and 103 (47.4%) patients, respectively. In multivariate analysis, the Endo-Stage MRI system of triage was strongly predictive of surgical complications and achieved higher accuracy than the revised American Society for Reproductive Medicine classification (AUC: 0.78 (95% CI, 0.76–0.80) vs. 0.61 (95% CI, 0.58–0.64)). Conclusion: Our study proposes a new imaging classification of endometriosis coined Endo-Stage MRI classification. The results suggest that when applied to a clinical situation, it may improve care pathways by providing crucial information for identifying intermediate and/or high-risk stages of endometriosis with increased rates of surgical complications. To make this classification applicable, a multicentric validation study is necessary to assess the relevancy and clinical value of the current anatomical MRI classification.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.126
GPT teacher head0.457
Teacher spread0.331 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations17
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical MedicineSame topicEndometriosis Research and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207