Determining Etiology of Facial Nerve Paralysis With MRI: Challenges in Malignancy Detection.
Clicks: 403
ID: 48787
2019
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This
article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score —
reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
Reader Engagement
Star Article
65.7
/100
403 views
263 readers
Trending
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
StarRanked #2 of 6 articles by views in the annals of otology, rhinology, and laryngology
Most read
Least read
Bar heights use a square-root scale.
Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet mintedCreate a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.
5
SUSD
one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
Compare experts' ability to differentiate malignant and benign causes of facial nerve paralysis (FNP) using the initial presenting magnetic resonance image (MRI) for each patient.This retrospective case-controlled study compared MRIs for 9 patients with a malignant cause for FNP, 8 patients with Bell's palsy, and 9 cochlear implant patients serving as controls. The initial presenting MRI for each condition was used such that raters were evaluating real-world rather than optimal studies. Three blinded expert raters independently evaluated each segment of the facial nerve for abnormalities, provided a diagnosis, and graded MRI quality. Cohen's and Light's kappa were used to calculate interrater reliability and overall index of agreement, respectively.MRI protocols for the malignancy group were universally suboptimal. There was poor agreement among raters for abnormalities of the facial nerve along the brainstem (0.13), geniculate (0.10), tympanic segment (0.12), and mastoid segment (0.13); moderate agreement along the cisternal segment (0.58) and internal auditory canal (0.55); and fair agreement along the labyrinthine segment (0.26) and extratemporal segment (0.36). Agreement regarding final diagnosis was fair (0.37) when compared to the true diagnosis. There were 2 false negative interpretations (failure to correctly identify malignancy) and 1 false positive interpretation.MRI for FNP is often initially performed with an incorrect protocol and thus may fail to reliably differentiate neoplastic from inflammatory FNP even when interpreted by experienced clinicians. Nevertheless, expert readers correctly diagnosed 87.5% of malignant causes of FNP despite these limitations.
| Reference Key |
tolisano2019determiningthe
Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using
SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
|
|---|---|
| Authors | Tolisano, Anthony M;Hunter, Jacob B;Sakai, Mark;Kutz, Joe Walter;Moore, William;Pinho, Marco;Isaacson, Brandon; |
| Journal | the annals of otology, rhinology, and laryngology |
| Year | 2019 |
| DOI |
10.1177/0003489419848462
|
| URL | |
| Keywords |
Citations
No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org
Comments
No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.