Association of Bone Edema with the Progression of Bone Erosions Quantified by Hand Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis in Remission
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the association of synovitis, bone marrow edema (BME), and tenosynovitis in the progression of erosions quantified by hand magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) at 1 year in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in remission. METHODS: A total of 56 of 196 patients with early RA in remission at 1 year and with available MRI data at baseline and at 12 months were included. MRI images were assessed according to the Rheumatoid Arthritis Magnetic Resonance Imaging Scoring (RAMRIS) system. Persistent remission was defined as 28-joint Disease Activity Score-erythrocyte sedimentation rate ≤ 2.6 and/or Simplified Disease Activity Index ≤ 3.3 and/or the new boolean American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism remission criteria for a continuous period of at least 6 months. Progression of bone erosions was defined as an increase of 1 or more units in annual RAMRIS score for erosions compared to baseline. RESULTS: At 1 year, the majority of patients with RA in sustained remission showed some inflammatory activity on MRI (94.6% synovitis, 46.4% BME, and 58.9% tenosynovitis) and 19 of the 56 patients (33.9%) showed MRI progression of bone erosions. A significant difference was observed in MRI BME at 1 year, with higher mean score in patients with progression compared to nonprogression of erosions (4.8 ± 5.6 and 1.4 ± 2.6, p = 0.03). CONCLUSION: Subclinical inflammation was identified by MRI in 96.4% of patients with RA in sustained clinical remission. Significantly higher scores of BME after sustained remission were observed in patients with progression of erosions compared to patients with no progression. The persistence of higher scores of BME may explain the progression of bone erosions in patients with persistent clinical remission.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".