208. Incidental findings on PET/CT in patients with large vessel vasculitis
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<strong>Background: </strong>This study aims to shed light on the number and type of incidental findings detected on positron emission tomography (PET)/CT in a cohort of patients with large vessel vasculitis (LVV). <strong>Methods:</strong> The scan reports from PET/CT studies along with the medical charts of a cohort of patients with LVV from a clinic in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada were retrospectively reviewed on Connect Care and Netcare. Incidental findings from PET/CT, along with follow up studies and their diagnosis were documented and analysed. <strong>Results:</strong> The disease activity of 40 patients, with an average age of 65.8 years, was investigated using PET/CT. A total of 59 incidental findings were found in 28 (70%) patients. Of these findings, 45.8% were in the abdomen and pelvis. The most common incidental finding was lymphadenopathy (11.9%). Subsequent investigations of 7 patients confirmed pathological aetiology in 3 patients and benign findings in 4 patients. <strong>Conclusions:</strong> Overall, out of the 40 patients studied with PET/CT, 7 (17.5%) had follow up investigations. Most of the incidental findings were insignificant, but a total of 3 (7.5%) patients needed further management for their incidental findings, this included metastatic adenocarcinoma, pheochromocytoma, and cerebral infarct. With the increased usage of PET/CT in the assessment of patients with LVV and older age, incidental findings may become a significant result. Further studies are needed to determine the significance of the relationship between these incidental findings and LVV. <strong>Disclosures: </strong>None
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.004 |
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 it