MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Reliability of progressive and additive MRI scoring systems for evaluation of haemophilic arthropathy in children: Expert MRI Working Group of the International Prophylaxis Study Group

2005· article· en· W2008862617 on OpenAlexaffabout
Andréa S. Doria, Björn Lundin, Ray F. Kilcoyne, Paul Babyn, Scott E. Miller, Rachelle Nuss, Georges‐Étienne Rivard, Derek Stephens, H. Pettersson

Bibliographic record

VenueHaemophilia · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHemophilia Treatment and Research
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-JustineSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick Children
FundersNational Center for Research Resources
KeywordsMedicineReliability (semiconductor)HaemophiliaArthropathyPhysical therapyGroup (periodic table)SurgeryAlternative medicinePathologyOsteoarthritis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Effective treatment of haemophilic arthropathy requires a detailed evaluation of joint integrity. Methodological assessment of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scores are needed to assure reproducibility of measurements when comparing results of clinical trials conducted in different centres. We compared the reliability of two MRI scoring systems for assessment of haemophilic arthropathy: one progressive system that displays the most severe change and one additive system that depicts osteochondral and soft tissue-related changes. A total of 47 1.5 T MRI examinations of knees (n = 21) and ankles (n = 26) of 42 haemophilic boys, age range, 22 months to 18 years, performed at different centres (Toronto, n = 20, Europe, n = 12 and Denver, n = 15) were independently reviewed by four radiologists at two occasions. Twenty-two examinations were from children <9 years and 25 from children >/=9. Sagittal and coronal gradient-echo (MPGR, 3D FLASH with fat saturation, GRASS) images were obtained. The MRI examinations of the ankle and knee studies presented with osteochondral abnormalities in 38.5% and 23.8% of the cases respectively. The two scoring systems demonstrated an excellent inter-reader [progressive, 0.88; additive (A, e, s and h components), 0.86] and intra-reader [progressive, 0.92; additive (A, e, s and h components), 0.93] reliability using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). Although ICCs were slightly higher for knees when compared with ankles, and for older children when compared with younger children, all values fell within excellent inter- and intra-reader reliability categories. The two MRI scoring systems demonstrated a comparable reliability. This result constitutes the basis for further development of a combined MRI scoring system for assessment of haemophilic arthropathy, which incorporates progressive and additive components.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.037
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.091

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.037
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.035
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.294 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations58
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHaemophiliaSame topicHemophilia Treatment and ResearchFrench-language works237,207