0.5T MRI as a competitor to CT for sinus imaging
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The goal of this study was to determine how radiologists' rating of image quality when using 0.5T Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) compares to Computed Tomography (CT) for visualization of pathology and evaluation of specific anatomic regions within the paranasal sinuses. 42 patients with clinical CT scans opted to have a 0.5T MRI scan for this study. Scans were completed from June 2021 to June 2022 with an average of 65.2 days from CT to MRI. A neuroradiologist and neuroradiology fellow evaluated the images to answer several questions and provide a confidence score for each based on image quality. Responses between the CT and MRI scans were compared for intramodality and intermodality agreement. The Likert scores demonstrate that MRI performed well in assessing mucosal thickening. Performance was not adequate for anatomical questions for presurgical planning. 0.5T MRI is able to produce high quality imaging of the sinuses. This could be used as a radiation free test to correlate mucosal thickening with patient's symptoms. However, a CT would be needed to screen for ostiomeatal obstruction and anatomical visualization of critical variants for presurgical planning.
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 | 0.006 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".