Reproducibility of Joint Swelling Assessment by Sonography in Patients with Long-lasting Rheumatoid Arthritis (SEA-Repro Study Part II)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the intraobserver and interobserver reproducibility of B-mode and power Doppler (PD) sonography in patients with active long-standing rheumatoid arthritis (RA) comparatively with clinical data. METHODS: In each of 7 patients being considered for a change in their RA treatment regimen, 7 healthcare professionals examined the 28 joints used in the Disease Activity Score 28-joint count (DAS28). Then 7 sonographers examined each of the 7 patients twice, using previously published B-mode and PD grading systems. The clinical reference standard was presence of synovitis according to at least 4/7 examiners. The sonographic reference standard was at least grade 1 (ALG1) or 2 (ALG2) synovitis according to at least 4/7 sonographers. Interobserver reproducibility of sonography was assessed versus the sonographer having the best intraobserver reproducibility. Agreement was measured by Cohen's kappa statistic. RESULTS: Intraobserver and interobserver reproducibility of B-mode and PD used separately was fair to good. Agreement between clinicians and sonographers at all sites using B-mode, PD, and both was 0.46, 0.37, and 0.36, respectively, for grade 1 synovitis; and 0.58, 0.19, and 0.19 for grade 2 synovitis. The number of joints with synovitis was smaller by physical examination (36.7%) than by B-mode with ALG1 (58.6%; p < 0.001). The number of joints with synovitis was higher by physical examination than by PD with both ALG1 (17.8%; p < 0.0001) and ALG2 (6.6%; p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: PD findings explain most of the difference between clinical and sonographic joint assessments for synovitis in patients with long-standing RA.
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 | 0.008 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".