MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7102390727 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2025-110078

Sonographic Assessment of the Optic Nerve Sheath in Giant Cell Arteritis (SONIC-GCA): protocol for a prospective, multicentre diagnostic test accuracy study

2025· article· en· W7102390727 on OpenAlexafffundabout

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVasculitis and related conditions
Canadian institutionsSinai Health SystemSt Joseph's Health CareMcGill University Health CentreHôpital du Sacré-Cœur de Montréal
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsGiant cell arteritisDiagnostic accuracyIntraclass correlationUltrasoundOptic nerveReceiver operating characteristicNeuroradiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction Giant cell arteritis (GCA) is a vision-threatening systemic vasculitis for which no universally accessible diagnostic tool exists. Optic nerve sheath diameter (ONSD), measurable via ultrasound, has emerged as a promising, non-invasive biomarker of cranial GCA. The Sonographic Assessment of the Optic Nerve Sheath in Giant Cell Arteritis (SONIC-GCA) aims to validate ONSD ultrasound as a diagnostic and monitoring tool in GCA. Methods and analysis SONIC-GCA is a prospective, multicentre study enrolling patients referred for the evaluation of suspected GCA. A total of 285 participants will undergo optic nerve sheath ultrasound and digital retinal funduscopy, followed by a standardised GCA assessment. All participants will be followed for a minimum of 6 months, at which time an external adjudication committee will confirm the diagnosis of GCA. Those diagnosed with GCA will be followed for 2 years, with repeated optic nerve sheath ultrasound and digital retinal funduscopy at months 3, 6, 12, 18, 24 and at relapse, if applicable. The primary outcome is the diagnostic accuracy of ONSD to detect GCA, which will be evaluated using receiver operating characteristic curve analysis, with adjudicated GCA status serving as the reference standard. Secondary outcomes will address several complementary domains: its value for relapse monitoring will be assessed through time-dependent Cox proportional hazards models, examining whether baseline or longitudinal ONSD predicts relapse risk; intraobserver and interobserver reliability will be determined using intraclass correlation coefficients, providing quantitative estimates of measurement reproducibility; and its association with retinal findings will be evaluated by correlating ONSD measurements with ocular imaging and clinical retinal outcomes. Together, these analyses will comprehensively determine the diagnostic, prognostic and operational utility of ONSD in GCA. Ethics and dissemination The study has been peer-reviewed by the scientific committee and approved by the CIUSSS du Nord-de-l’Île-de-Montréal Research Ethics Board. Each participating site will obtain local ethics approval prior to enrolment. All participants will provide informed consent. Results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications, conference presentations and webinars. Trial registration number NCT05749094 .

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.081
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.063
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.081
Threshold uncertainty score0.428

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0810.063
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.006
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0050.003
Research integrity0.0050.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0300.009

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.421
Teacher spread0.389 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNon-randomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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 routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ Open→Same topicVasculitis and related conditions→French-language works237,207→