{"submission_id":"e0d2d881-3834-4a20-bc1f-e017d3af5289","submission_revision_id":"a1f86b6b-dea8-4db0-9cde-4ef57e46e6f1","revision_version":7,"submission_status":"under_review","submitted_at":"2026-08-31T22:29:52.343777Z","submitter_name":"Roman Sitelew","submitter_email":"sitelewr@gmail.com","task":{"status":"submitted","version":7,"extra_fields":{"difficulty_self_test":{"model":"Claude Opus 5","harness":"Claude Code","estimated_score":"40–60%"}},"submitted_at":"2026-08-31T22:29:52.343777+00:00","industry_domain":"Neuroradiology, Medical Imaging","task_short_name":"MRI_stroke_detection","operating_system":"MacOS","task_description":"Task:\n\nSystematically inspect the patient's MRI study across all slices for evidence of large-scale ischemic stroke. You can use Horos to open / render the data. Save a JSON report to /tmp/stroke_eval.json\n\nAnswer Formatting Rules:\n\n- stroke_present: true if large-scale ischemic damage is found; false otherwise.\n- series_description: The exact DICOM Series Description of the primary sequence showing the stroke (e.g., \"DWI\", \"FLAIR\"). Set to null if no stroke is present.\n- suspect_slices: List of 1-indexed slice numbers where the lesion is visible. If stroke_present is false, this array must be empty ([]).\n- patient_age: e.g. \"062Y\", as indicated by the metadata\n- PatientIdentityRemoved: \"NO\" or \"YES\", as indicated by the metadata\n\nNote on slice numbering: the numbers index images **within the single series named in series_description**, counting from 1 in order of ascending DICOM InstanceNumber (0020,0013). Instance order is not necessarily superior-to-inferior — follow InstanceNumber, not anatomical position. If that series stores more than one volume, keep counting across the whole series as stored, and do not restart the numbering inside a sub-volume\n\nPositive Case Sample:\n \n{\n  \"stroke_present\": true,\n  \"series_description\": \"DWI b1000\",\n  \"suspect_slices\": [16, 17, 18, 19, 20],\n  \"patient_age\": \"018Y\",\n  \"PatientIdentityRemoved\": \"NO\"\n}\n\nNegative Case Sample:\n\n{\n  \"stroke_present\": false,\n  \"series_description\": null,\n  \"suspect_slices\": [],\n  \"patient_age\": \"018Y\",\n  \"PatientIdentityRemoved\": \"NO\"\n}","software_licensing":"Free/Open Source","evaluation_criteria":null,"verification_method":"The content of stroke_eval.json should be exactly as stated below, because the MRI data doesn't show any evidence of large-scale ischemic stroke, as verified by doctors, and by the fact that i (the brain's owner) can write this.\n(Note: I carefully anonymized the data, and issue here my explicit permission to use it for any purposes, releasing the data into Public Domain. BTW, this is a task in MRI_stroke_detection variants of tasks).\n\nThe result must be this one:\n{\n  \"stroke_present\": false,\n  \"series_description\": null,\n  \"suspect_slices\": [],\n  \"patient_age\": \"041Y\",\n  \"PatientIdentityRemoved\": \"YES\"\n}","software_and_version":"Horos 3.3.6","specific_requirements":null,"expected_completion_time":null},"files":[{"file_id":"8ff79db8-bac8-4c56-a79f-018cf5b5ff55","filename":"raw_DICOM_anonimized.zip","category":"input_materials","content_type":"application/zip","size_bytes":150228758},{"file_id":"6cdcf7b7-bbfa-443f-9c5a-4c9938895742","filename":"opus5_result.png","category":"difficulty_self_test_evidence","content_type":"image/png","size_bytes":362094},{"file_id":"1b0966e9-1d92-4913-b9a7-2c49c2b00a3e","filename":"opus5_conversation_log_anon.jsonl","category":"difficulty_self_test_evidence","content_type":"application/octet-stream","size_bytes":9313594},{"file_id":"4c89938e-1237-48a5-aca1-7b11477aa6db","filename":"stroke_eval.json","category":"reference_output","content_type":"application/json","size_bytes":143}],"deep_review":{"overall_verdict":"Strong Accept","review_text":"**Overall Verdict:** Strong Accept — The submission is complete, internally consistent, safely reachable, professionally representative, and supports deterministic end-to-end completion and evaluation.\n\n**Completeness Check:**\n- Instruction: Complete — The required MRI review, output location, JSON schema, negative-case behavior, and InstanceNumber-based slice numbering are explicit.\n- Inputs: Complete — The archive contains one coherent MR study with 2,169 readable DICOM images across 17 series, including diffusion, ADC, axial T2, and FLAIR sequences.\n- Toolchain: Complete — Horos is identified as a free, suitable DICOM viewer; the standard uncompressed DICOM data is also usable with compatible imaging tools.\n- Reference output: Complete — The supplied JSON is valid, follows the required schema, and matches metadata consistently present throughout the study.\n- Rubric: Complete — Exact expected values are provided for every output field, enabling deterministic evaluation and routine field-level partial scoring.\n\n**File and Task Reachability:**\nThe attachment set is `reachable`, and the end-to-end task is `reachable`. `raw_DICOM_anonimized.zip`, `opus5_result.png`, `opus5_conversation_log_anon.jsonl`, and `stroke_eval.json` were all inspected. The ZIP is a valid, unencrypted, single-part archive with safe paths, no special filesystem objects, successful CRC validation, and approximately 343 MB of expanded content. It contains 2,169 standard explicit-VR little-endian MR DICOM images plus four benign macOS metadata files. Every DICOM header was parsed: all images belong to one study, all 17 series have unique contiguous InstanceNumbers, all contain pixel payloads, and every image reports age `041Y` and identity removal `YES`. The screenshot and fully parseable 172-record JSONL log consistently document an independent full-study analysis and the expected JSON result. Pixel data was not independently rendered in the reviewer environment because Horos and a DICOM renderer were unavailable, but the files’ format, encoding, dimensions, sequence coverage, and demonstrated processing path establish usability. An ordinary solver can import the archive into Horos or a compatible viewer, inspect the stroke-relevant series, write the required JSON, and have all fields compared objectively with the evaluator-only reference. No attachment content remains materially unreviewed. License keys, accounts, tokens, and other credentials are not required from the contributor. Confidential, proprietary, or internal material may be evaluated as submitted evidence without requiring additional disclosure.\n\n**Special Screening:**\nNone. No affirmative evidence supports an AI-synthetic, public-benchmark, or synthetic-defect-fixture label. Public availability was not independently checked because external search is outside the permitted review scope.\n\n**Recommended Changes:**\nThe instruction, imaging study, reference artifact, and independent self-test evidence are coherent and complete. No changes are required.","reviewed_at":"2026-08-31T22:39:53.342424Z"},"claim":null}