Questioning the Utility of Temporal Artery Biopsy in Giant Cell Arteritis: A Negative Biopsy May Facilitate Decision-making
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Plastic surgeons are frequently consulted to perform temporal artery biopsy (TAB), even though patients meet the American College of Rheumatology diagnostic criteria for giant cell arteritis (GCA) and are already treated. This study aimed to analyze the impact of TAB on steroid duration in patients undergoing TAB. Methods: We undertook a prospective study of adult patients undergoing TAB for GCA in Calgary. Consecutive, multicenter recruitment was performed over 2 years. Primary outcomes included initiation or discontinuation and duration of corticosteroids. Results: Twenty-one TABs were performed in 20 patients. Nineteen percent of TABs were positive, and 71.4%, negative. In 9.5% of patients, accidental sampling of a vessel other than the superficial temporal artery occurred. Fifty-two percent of patients received steroids before TAB, of which the mean duration was 8.0 days for TAB+ (postive temporal artery biopsy result) patients and 8.4 days for TAB− (negative temporal artery biopsy result; P = 0.22) patients. Before TAB, the American College of Rheumatology score was 2.5 for TAB+ patients and 2.4 for TAB− ( P = 0.74). Postbiopsy, the American College of Rheumatology score was 3.5 for TAB+ patients (therefore reaching diagnostic threshold of 3) but remained 2.4 for TAB− ( P = 0.02). TAB+ patients were treated for 352.3 days, whereas TAB− patients for 16.7 days ( P = 0.29). Complications were more likely with long-term (>6 weeks) steroids ( P = 0.17). Conclusion: In patients with a low suspicion of GCA, a negative TAB helps bolster physician confidence and leads to a shorter steroid duration.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".