MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2067402052 · doi:10.3899/jrheum.110445

Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Radiographic Assessment of Carpal Depressions in Children with Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis: Normal Variants or Erosions?

2012· article· en· W2067402052 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Peter Boavida, Rikin Hargunani, Cátherine M. Owens, Karen Rosendahl

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Rheumatology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAutoimmune and Inflammatory Disorders Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSynovitisMagnetic resonance imagingRadiographyCarpal bonesWristRadiologyArthritisCarpal JointJuvenileJuvenile rheumatoid arthritisInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is playing an increasingly important role in the diagnosis and followup of juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA). Carpal depressions are commonly observed in healthy children and in patients with JIA. The aim of our study was to further characterize these depressions in patients with JIA. METHODS: A total of 29 MRI wrist examinations were analyzed. Depressions were classified according to morphology as either tubular or focal. Features including the presence of a vessel related to the depression, evidence of synovitis, bone marrow edema, or loss of joint space on a radiograph taken on the same day were recorded for each depression. RESULTS: A total of 173 depressions were identified in 145 carpal bones. Forty percent were capitate depressions. A third were focal depressions and two-thirds were tubular. About 10% of tubular depressions and 30% of focal depressions were associated with features suggesting true erosions, with the remainder likely to represent vascular channels and normal variants. CONCLUSION: Radiologists and clinicians should undertake caution when assessing carpal depressions on MRI because the vast majority are likely to represent normal variants.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.064
Threshold uncertainty score0.252

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.264 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations20
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of RheumatologySame topicAutoimmune and Inflammatory Disorders ResearchFrench-language works237,207