Reliability and construct validity of the compatible MRI scoring system for evaluation of elbows in haemophilic children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We assessed the reliability and construct validity of the Compatible MRI scale for evaluation of elbows, and compared the diagnostic performance of MRI and radiographs for assessment of these joints. Twenty-nine MR examinations of elbows from 27 boys with haemophilia A and B [age range, 5-17 years (mean, 11.5)] were independently read by four blinded radiologists on two occasions. Three centres participated in the study: (Toronto, n = 24 examinations; Atlanta, n = 3; Cuiaba, n = 2). The number of previous joint bleeds and severity of haemophilia were reference standard measures. The inter-reader reliability of MRI scores was substantial (ICC = 0.73) for the additive (A)-scale and excellent (ICC = 0.83) for the progressive (P)-scale. The intrareader reliability was excellent for both P-scores (ICC = 0.91) and A-scores (ICC = 0.93). The total P- and A-scores correlated poorly (r = 0.36) or moderately (r = 0.54), but positively, with clinical-laboratory measurements. The total MRI scores demonstrated high accuracy for discrimination of presence or absence of arthropathy [P-scale, area-under-the-curve (AUC) = 0.94 +/- 0.05; A-scale, AUC = 0.89 +/- 0.06], as did the soft tissue scores of both scales (P-scale, AUC = 0.90 +/- 0.06; A-scale, AUC = 0.86 +/- 0.06). Areas-under-the-curve used to discriminate severe disease demonstrated high accuracy for both P-MRI scores (AUC = 0.83 +/- 0.09) and A-MRI scores (AUC = 0.87 +/- 0.09), but non-diagnostic ability to discriminate mild disease. Similar results were noted for radiographic scales. In conclusion, both MRI scales demonstrated substantial to excellent reliability and accuracy for discrimination of presence/absence of arthropathy, and severe/non-severe disease, but poor to moderate convergent validity for total scores and non-diagnostic discriminant validity for mild/non-mild disease. Compared with radiographic scores, MRI scales did not perform better for discrimination of severity of arthropathy.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".