Compatible scales for progressive and additive MRI assessments of haemophilic arthropathy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The international MRI expert subgroup of the International Prophylaxis Study Group (IPSG) has developed a consensus for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scales for assessment of haemophilic arthropathy. A MRI scoring scheme including a 10 step progressive scale and a 20 step additive scale with identical definitions of mutual steps is presented. Using the progressive scale, effusion/haemarthrosis can correspond to progressive scores of 1, 2, or 3, and synovial hypertrophy and/or haemosiderin deposition to 4, 5, or 6. The progressive score can be 7 or 8 if there are subchondral cysts and/or surface erosions, and it is 9 or 10 if there is loss of cartilage. Using the additive scale, synovial hypertrophy contributes 1-3 points to the additive score and haemosiderin deposition contributes 1 point. For osteochondral changes, 16 statements are evaluated as to whether they are true or false, and each true statement contributes 1 point to the additive score. The use of these two compatible scales for progressive and additive MRI assessments can facilitate international comparison of data and enhance the accumulation of experience on MRI scoring of haemophilic 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 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 | 0.017 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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".