The Role of Ultrasound Biomicroscopy in Predicting the Result of Temporal Artery Biopsy in Temporal Arteritis Patients: A Preliminary Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Temporal artery biopsy is considered the gold standard for the diagnosis of temporal arteritis (TA). However, complications following this procedure may occur. The goal of this study is to evaluate if ultrasound biomicroscope (UBM) findings are useful in predicting the result (positive or negative) of temporal artery biopsy in patients with TA. Methods Twenty-six consecutive patients with clinical diagnosis of TA seen at the Department of Ophthalmology, Royal Victoria Hospital, Montreal, Canada, were involved in this study. All patients were submitted to UBM before temporal artery biopsy. Eight patients presented histopathologic findings consistent with the diagnosis of TA. Thus, UBM findings of these patients were compared with those from 18 patients with negative biopsy. On UBM we searched for the presence of a hypoechoic effect surrounding the walls of the temporal arteries, the so-called halo sign, as well as an intra-arterial middle reflexive filling, the so-called intra-arterial filling. Results The halo sign and/or the intra-arterial filling were found in 8 (100%) of 8 patients with biopsy-proven TA. However, 10 (55.5%) of 18 patients with a negative biopsy presented one or both of these two UBM findings. On the other hand, the absence of these two parameters on the UBM of a patient with TA strongly suggests that the temporal artery biopsy will be negative (negative predictive value=100%). Conclusions This preliminary work suggests that UBM may play a role in predicting a negative result of the temporal artery biopsy in patients with TA. In the present series approximately 30% of the patients could be spared this surgical procedure and its possible complications.
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".