Global Practices in Cardiac Imaging for Cardiac Sarcoidosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cardiac imaging is a cornerstone in the initial diagnosis, management, and follow-up of cardiac sarcoidosis. However, ordering thresholds, access, and follow-up imaging vary across the globe. OBJECTIVES: A Delphi study was conducted to define areas of consensus and areas requiring further study in the use of cardiac imaging in suspected or established cardiac sarcoidosis. METHODS: An international, multidisciplinary panel of experts in cardiac sarcoidosis completed a modified 2-round Delphi study. The study evaluated clinical decision making regarding the use of cardiac imaging, including indication thresholds, interpretation, and interval follow-up imaging. Consensus was defined a priori as ≥70% agreement or disagreement. RESULTS: F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography was an important co-primary modality with cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) for initial diagnosis. If CMR was the first test, there was consensus to proceed to FDG-positron emission tomography after any abnormal CMR result or even after normal CMR result in the setting of moderate or high pretest probability for cardiac sarcoidosis. There was consensus that late gadolinium enhancement quantification was important, but there was no consensus on the threshold of risk or on how best to quantify late gadolinium enhancement. Similarly, reduction in FDG uptake was an important factor in guiding treatment response, but there was no consensus on how to best quantify FDG uptake or what constituted an adequate radiographic response. CONCLUSIONS: Several consensus areas for cardiac imaging in suspected and established cardiac sarcoidosis were identified. This consensus study identified areas of priority for future prospective, controlled, multicenter research studies.
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 | 0.045 | 0.063 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".