Relation of Hand Enthesophytes with Knee Enthesopathy: Is Osteoarthritis Related to a Systemic Enthesopathy?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Enthesopathy has been reported as a feature of osteoarthritis (OA) in the distal interphalangeal (DIP) joints. We previously reported that central bone marrow lesions (BML) on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans are associated with OA. In this study, we evaluated whether hand and knee enthesopathy were related. METHODS: We studied knee and hand radiographs of subjects from the Framingham Osteoarthritis Study. Subjects seen in 2002-2005 had bilateral posteroanterior hand radiographs, weight-bearing knee radiographs, and knee MRI scans. Hand radiographs were read for enthesophytes at the juxtaarticular nonsynovial areas of metacarpophalangeal (MCP), proximal interphalangeal (PIP), and DIP joints, and midshafts of the phalanges. We selected 100 cases of knees with central BML and 100 matched controls. Conditional logistic regression was used to assess associations. RESULTS: Subjects with enthesophytes of at least 1 score ≥ 2 at DIP, PIP, and/or MCP were not more likely to have central knee BML (OR 0.49, 95% CI 0.17-1.40) than those without enthesophytes. Similarly, having at least 1 score ≥ 2 on the shafts was not significantly associated with having a central knee BML (OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.23-1.51). Adjustment for the presence of diabetes mellitus did not affect these results, but there was an increased prevalence of diabetes in those with hand enthesophytes (OR 3.09, 95% 1.29-7.40, enthesophyte score ≥ 2). CONCLUSION: We found no increase in the prevalence of hand enthesophytes among persons with central knee BML on their knee MRI scans. This provides evidence against a systemic enthesopathic disorder in association with knee OA.
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 | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".