The Longitudinal Reliability and Responsiveness of the OMERACT Hand Osteoarthritis Magnetic Resonance Imaging Scoring System (HOAMRIS)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the interreader reliability of change scores and the responsiveness of the OMERACT Hand Osteoarthritis (OA) Magnetic Resonance Image (MRI) Scoring System (HOAMRIS). METHODS: Paired MRI (baseline and 5-yr followup) from 20 patients with hand OA were scored with known time sequence by 3 readers according to the HOAMRIS: Synovitis, erosive damage, cysts, osteophytes, cartilage space loss, malalignment, and bone marrow lesions (BML; 0-3 scales with 0.5 increments for synovitis, erosive damage, and BML). Interreader reliability for status and change scores were assessed by intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC), percentage exact agreement and percentage close agreement (PEA/PCA), and smallest detectable change (SDC). Responsiveness was assessed by standardized response means (SRM). RESULTS: Cross-sectional interreader ICC were good to very good (≥ 0.74) for all features except synovitis, cysts, and malalignment (ICC 0.50-0.58). The range of change values was small, leading to low ICC for change scores. The SDC values for sum scores (total range 0-24) varied between 1.97-3.05 (except 1.08 for malalignment). For status scores, PEA/PCA on scores in individual joints across the readers were 8.1-50.0 and 43.8-78.1, respectively. Similarly, PEA/PCA for change scores were 20.6-63.8 and 66.3-93.1, respectively. All features except cysts and BML demonstrated good responsiveness with higher SRM for sum scores (range 0.46-1.62) than for scores in individual joints (range 0.24-0.73). CONCLUSION: Good to very good interreader ICC values were found for cross-sectional readings, whereas the longitudinal reliability was lower because of a smaller range of change scores. All features, except cysts and BML, showed good responsiveness.
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 | 0.019 | 0.053 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".