Diagnostics Accuracy of Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Detection of Atherosclerotic Plaque Characteristics in Carotid Arteries Compared to Histology: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Carotid plaque composition represents one of the main risk factors of future ischemic stroke. MRI provides excellent soft tissue contrast that can distinguish plaque characteristics. Our objective was to analyze the diagnostic accuracy of MRI imaging in the detection of carotid plaque characteristics compared to histology in patients with symptomatic and asymptomatic carotid atherosclerosis through a systematic review. After prospective registration in PROSPERO (ID CRD42022329690), Medline Ovid, Embase.com, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science Core were searched without any search limitation up to May 27, 2022 to identify eligible articles. Of the 8168 studies, 53 (37 × 1.5 T MRI, 17 × 3 T MRI) evaluated MRI accuracy in the detection of 13 specific carotid plaque characteristics in 169 comparisons. MRI demonstrated high diagnostic accuracy for detection of calcification (3 T MRI: mean sensitivity 92%/mean specificity 90%; 1.5 T MRI: mean sensitivity 81%/mean specificity 91%), fibrous cap (1.5 T: 89%/87%), unstable plaque (1.5 T: 89%/87%), intraplaque hemorrhage (1.5 T: 86%/88%), and lipid-rich necrotic core (1.5 T: 89%/79%). MRI also proved to have a high level of tissue discrimination for the carotid plaque characteristics investigated, allowing potentially for a better risk assessment and follow-up of patients who may benefit from more aggressive treatments. These results emphasize the role of MRI as the first-line imaging modality for comprehensive assessment of carotid plaque morphology, particularly for unstable plaque. EVIDENCE LEVEL: 2 TECHNICAL EFFICACY: Stage 2.
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 | 0.011 | 0.055 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".