Quest 7.29 - Case-level exploratory study
Multimodal treatment recommendation with auditable clinical reasoning.
The complete 83-case cohort combines preoperative clinical text with AP and lateral DSA views. Every case has an out-of-fold Top-1 and Top-2 recommendation, a model-generated rationale, and an explicit uncertainty statement.
What has been completed
From data audit to a complete case-level review set
The technical pipeline covers all 83 cases. Blinded physician review remains the next validation step.
Data audit
83 de-identified cases were linked to 166 PNG images. Each case has one AP and one lateral view.
Leakage-controlled evaluation
Each case appeared in a held-out test fold exactly once across five folds.
Multi-reference scoring
Top-1 and Top-2 predictions were compared with all supplied expert references, preserving disagreement.
Reasoning generation
Qwen3.6-27B generated 83 case rationales from model outputs without receiving the reference labels.
Interpretation
Strong candidate coverage, limited exact agreement
Top-2 coverage is high when any expert reference is accepted. Exact agreement with the technique actually used remains modest, reflecting both model error and real treatment-choice variability.
Important limits
Not yet a clinical validation result
- No patient-to-case mapping was supplied; evaluation is case-level.
- No independent locked external cohort has been tested.
- Class scores have not been calibrated as probabilities of clinical correctness.
- Generated rationales still require blinded physician review.
Cohort organization
One primary grouping, three complementary views
Cases are grouped by the model's Top-1 technique and can be filtered by performance, score separation, and expert-reference agreement.
Complete cohort
All 83 de-identified cases
Use the filters to inspect recommendations, failure modes, uncertainty, and expert disagreement without changing the underlying case set.
Blinded qualitative physician review
16 selected de-identified cases
Selected to cover confident, ambiguous, adjunctive-device, and retreatment scenarios. Outcome groups and expert-reference agreement are intentionally hidden in this section.
Review case 1 of 16
Case 61
Assigned out-of-fold recommendation
Coil embolization alone
Alternative: Flow diversion with coil embolization


View A is AP; View B is lateral, as confirmed by the data provider.
Case summary
A 75-year-old male presents with an unruptured right ACA A1 aneurysm measuring 5.3 mm x 4 mm x 5.4 mm with a 3.1 mm neck and a daughter sac.
Image observation
On the supplied views, a saccular outpouching appears on the proximal anterior cerebral artery with a visible neck connecting to the parent vessel.
Model-generated clinical rationale
The documented dimensions and neck width suggest a morphology that may be amenable to endovascular coiling. However, the presence of a daughter sac and the specific neck-to-dome ratio are critical factors that are not fully quantified in the narrative, potentially complicating coil stability.
Model uncertainty
The OOF classifier showed a relatively clear preference for Coil embolization alone over Flow diversion with coil embolization, but its scores are not probabilities of clinical correctness.
Clinical uncertainty / missing factor
The precise neck-to-dome ratio and the exact relationship of the daughter sac to the aneurysm neck are missing, which are essential for determining the feasibility of coil-only treatment versus adjunctive techniques.
Explicit evidence used
Unruptured right ACA A1 aneurysm | Dimensions 5.3 mm x 4 mm x 5.4 mm with 3.1 mm neck | Presence of a daughter sac