Agreement between clinical and radiological methods of diagnosing knee osteoarthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the agreement between clinical diagnosis and different radiological grading scales of knee osteoarthritis (OA) in an epidemiological study. METHODS: Health 2000 Survey is an extensive population study focusing on major health problems in a representative sample of 8028 Finns over 30 years of age. In the survey, physicians diagnosed knee OA on the basis of physical status, symptoms, and medical history. A total of 130 participants (mean age 60 years, 68% female) were re-examined 1 year later (Kuopio OA 2000 Study) to determine the agreement between clinical and radiological diagnosis as well as between three different radiological grading scales (Kellgren and Lawrence, Ahlbäck, and Piperno). Weight-bearing knee radiographs were taken and graded by a radiologist in Kuopio University Hospital. The history of knee symptoms was obtained using the Western Ontario MacMaster (WOMAC) and Lequesne questionnaires. RESULTS: Knee OA was diagnosed clinically in 17.7% and radiologically in 24.6-30% of participants. The strength of agreement was moderate (kappa values 0.34-0.54) between the clinical and the radiological diagnosis and substantial (0.62-0.78) between the different radiological scales. Those subjects identified by any diagnostic method as having OA in either knee reported significantly more symptoms and disability than the other subjects. CONCLUSION: The agreement between the clinical diagnosis performed in a large population study and radiological grading scales was only moderate. By contrast, the agreement between different radiological scales was substantial.
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 | 0.042 | 0.086 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".