Did Ramesses II really have ankylosing spondylitis? A reappraisal.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To challenge the diagnosis of ankylosing spondylitis in the mummy of Ramesses II that was suggested about 30 years ago and to propose a differential diagnosis for the changes that were detected in the mummy's spine and pelvis. METHODS: We read and interpreted both the published and unpublished radiographs of the mummy. RESULTS: Changes in the mummy's spine and pelvis included ossification of the anterior longitudinal ligament at the cervical spine level, ossified enthesopathy of both the right and left rectus femoris tendons as well as the right ischial tuberosity, a large osteophyte at both acetabula margins, no ankylosis of the cervical apophyseal joints and no ankylosis of the right sacroiliac joint. CONCLUSION: The radiologic evidence does not support the claim that Ramesses II had ankylosing spondylitis. Our radiologic reappraisal suggests instead the diagnosis of diffuse idiopathic skeletal hyperostosis. This new diagnosis needs to be validated by a computed tomographic scan of the mummy.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".