Reliability and construct validity of the compatible MRI scoring system for evaluation of haemophilic knees and ankles of haemophilic children. Expert MRI working group of the international prophylaxis study group
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We tested the reliability and construct validity of the Compatible magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scale for the evaluation of haemophilic knees and ankles and compared the diagnostic performance of MRI and plain film radiographs. Sagittal and coronal gradient-echo 1.5-T MR images of knees (n=22) and ankles (n=23) were obtained from boys (age range 4-16 years; mean 11 years) in two centres (Toronto, n=26; Europe, n=19). The MR images were independently read by four blinded radiologists on two occasions. Number of previous joint bleedings and laboratory level of severity of haemophilia were the reference standards for imaging assessment. Both components of the MRI scale demonstrated high inter- and intrareader intraclass correlation coefficients (progressive (P) scale, 0.91 and 0.94; additive (A) scale, 0.81 and 0.92 respectively). The correlation between the osteochondral domain of the MRI scale and patient's age was moderate. Otherwise, correlations between A- and P-scales and clinical laboratory measurements were weak. The areas under the curve (AUCs) used for discrimination of disease severity were similar for the A- and P-scales (AUCs used for mild disease, A-scale, 0.72+/-0.07; P-scale, 0.69+/-0.08; P=0.23; AUCs for severe disease, A-scale, 0.93+/-0.05; P-scale, 0.87+/-0.08; P=0.05). No differences were noted between the AUCs of the MRI and radiographic scales used for discrimination of late osteoarticular changes; MRI scales performed better for discrimination of early changes. In conclusion, both MRI scales demonstrated excellent reliability, poor convergent validity, and moderate and excellent validity for discrimination of mild and severe diseases respectively. Compared with radiographic scores, the MRI scales performed better for discrimination of early osteoarticular changes.
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 | 0.010 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".