ArticleInsights into imaging2026
Indeterminate CT reporting of adult acute appendicitis: radiologist versus lexicon-based diagnostic certainty.
Article in Insights into imaging, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate report indeterminacy, diagnostic performance, and agreement with final diagnosis in CT performed for suspected adult acute appendicitis (AA), comparing original radiologist reports, adjudicated impressions, and certainty derived from structured lexicon-based schemes. We also aimed to identify factors associated with indeterminate reporting. MATERIALS AND
methodsA total of 983 consecutive CT reports between August 2021 and July 2025 were reviewed. Diagnostic certainty was categorized from original radiology reports (negative, indeterminate, positive), with indeterminate cases adjudicated by two radiologists. Two objective lexicon-based schemes were applied using extracted CT findings (appendiceal diameter (6-mm and 7-mm cutoffs), wall thickening, wall hyperenhancement, and periappendiceal fat stranding) to generate four certainty categories (negative, possible, probable, positive). Surgical, pathological, and clinical outcomes served as reference standards.
resultsAcute appendicitis was confirmed in 393 patients (40%). Indeterminate reporting occurred in 15.5% of original reports, 12% of adjudicated reports, and 27.9-46.1% of lexicon-based schemes. Across all approaches, AA prevalence increased consistently with higher diagnostic certainty. Adjudicated reports demonstrated the highest diagnostic performance (sensitivity 85.2-98.7%, specificity 85.9-97.1%, accuracy 91.0-92.4%) and excellent agreement with final diagnosis (kappa = 0.819-0.838). Several CT features were independently associated with indeterminate reporting.
conclusionsRadiologist-adjudicated impressions conveyed diagnostic certainty more effectively than original reports and lexicon-based schemes, with lower indeterminacy and stronger agreement with the final diagnosis. These findings underscore the practical importance of careful wording and judicious use of indeterminate categories when communicating CT findings for suspected adult AA. CRITICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: Careful wording of CT impressions, grounded in radiologists' integrated judgment, can reduce diagnostic ambiguity and potentially improve clinical decision-making, supporting standardized languages to express diagnostic certainty in suspected adult acute appendicitis. KEY POINTS: CT reports for suspected appendicitis vary in wording, leading to indeterminate impressions, potentially affecting diagnostic performance and agreement with final diagnosis. Adjudicated radiologist impressions reduced indeterminate reports and achieved higher accuracy and agreement with final diagnosis than original reports or lexicon-based schemes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.