MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415439096 · doi:10.1302/1358-992x.2025.10.131

INAPPROPRIATE MRI USE IN THE DIAGNOSIS OF ACUTE SCIATICA

2025· article· en· W4415439096 on OpenAlexaffabout
Brian E. Heard, Ish Bains, Roman Krawetz, David J. Hart, Paul Salo, Ganesh Swamy

Bibliographic record

VenueOrthopaedic Proceedings · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicShoulder Injury and Treatment
Canadian institutionsAlberta Bible College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSciaticaMagnetic resonance imagingIncidence (geometry)Medical diagnosisLumbosacral jointPopulationEmergency department

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is a resource that warrants judicious use in Canada. Sciatica is a painful and debilitating condition resulting from compression (often from a herniated disc) of lumbosacral nerve roots. For most patients, this condition is self-limiting and resolves within 6 to 12 weeks. Given the high sensitivity and specificity of the diagnosis based on patient history and physical exam (90% and 71%, respectively), many would argue that MRI is not necessary in the diagnosis of acute sciatica. The goal of this study was to identify the incidence of MRI use in patients from an acute sciatica clinic, and then to elucidate any cost and time savings that could be realized by more appropriate MRI allocation. Patients were referred primarily from the emergency department and from primary care, after meeting our set inclusion criteria. All patients were seen within 4 weeks of their first presentation of sciatica, and were seen and assessed by a spine surgeon in our acute sciatica clinic. Incidence of MRI use in surgical and non-surgical patients was calculated. Of 128 patients enrolled in our study, 15 (12%) required surgical intervention while 113 (88%) experienced spontaneous resolution of their sciatica. Of the 113 patients that experienced spontaneous resolution, 49 (43.5%) received an MRI. Further to this, 11 (9%) non-surgical patients received an additional MRI. Understandably, 15 (100%) of surgical patients received an MRI. However, within the surgical population 7 (47%) patients received an additional MRI prior to surgery. Given the cost-estimate of $750CDN per MRI, $50,250 was the total cost for these 67 MRIs. No patients became surgical as a result of MRI findings. It is apparent that a large proportion of our patients, both surgical and nonsurgical, may have received an unnecessary MRI. Specifically, there were up to 67 potentially unnecessary MRIs conducted within just 128 patients in this study. The patients in this study met the inclusion criteria with a high sensitivity and specificity for sciatica, and in the absence of other spinal conditions. While some MRI usage in this non-surgical population may have been warranted, it is unlikely that the significant number of scans are justifiable. In a conservative cost estimate (excluding time in scanner, tech time, and radiologist time), $50,250.00 could have been saved. It is unclear what leads to the overuse of MRI in the work up for acute sciatica. Perhaps diagnostic uncertainty in some referring doctors is contributing. This study suggests that a clinic dedicated to the treatment of acute sciatica could have immediate benefits in health care resource allocation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.369

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.280 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOrthopaedic ProceedingsSame topicShoulder Injury and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207