2020
DOI: 10.1111/jon.12820
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Identification and Characterization of Leptomeningeal Metastases Using SPINE, A Web‐Based Collaborative Platform

Abstract: BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Leptomeningeal metastases (LMs) carry a poor prognosis. Existing LM scoring systems show limited reproducibility. We assessed the contribution of education level on the reproducibility of LM scoring using structured planning and implementation of new experiments (SPINE), a novel web-based platform. METHODS: Stringent radiological definitions of LM and a customized interactive scoring system were implemented in SPINE. Five patients with brain LM and 3 patients with spine, but no brain LM… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
2
1

Relationship

0
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 3 publications
(1 citation statement)
references
References 12 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The contribution of educational sessions on a web-based platform to improve the reproducibility of scoring LM has been explored. 14 Eight MRI series were scored by 4 radiologists (2 neuroradiology fellows and 2 radiology residents) without specific training and 3 neuroradiologists who had received instructions and task-specific pictorial examples and description of the tools prior to the scoring of patients. A better interobserver agreement was observed among reviewers who had received the training.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The contribution of educational sessions on a web-based platform to improve the reproducibility of scoring LM has been explored. 14 Eight MRI series were scored by 4 radiologists (2 neuroradiology fellows and 2 radiology residents) without specific training and 3 neuroradiologists who had received instructions and task-specific pictorial examples and description of the tools prior to the scoring of patients. A better interobserver agreement was observed among reviewers who had received the training.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%