Inflammatory and degenerative sacroiliac joint disease in a primary back pain cohort
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The prevalence of sacroiliac (SI) joint abnormalities in a primary low back pain population remains unresolved. The aims of our study were to define the prevalence of SI joint disease in this cohort, and to identify clinical features that might accurately predict radiographic changes in the SI joint and spine. METHODS: Lumbar spine and anteroposterior pelvis radiographs taken over a 3-year period for the evaluation of back pain at a major chiropractic college were scored for the presence of inflammatory or degenerative features. Data were subsequently extracted by means of a predetermined template from the clinical notes. The outcomes were correlated using Spearman's correlation coefficients. RESULTS: We identified 315 patients (173 men, 142 women), ages 18-60 years. Of these, 100 patients (31.7%) demonstrated SI joint abnormalities: 75 (23.8%) degenerative, 25 (7.9%) inflammatory. Sex was strongly associated with type of SI joint pathology; degenerative disease was predominantly found in women (68%), whereas inflammatory disease was predominantly found in men (63%). In women there was no correlation between degenerative SI joint abnormalities and degenerative changes in the lumbar spine. Of the clinical descriptors evaluated, none were associated with the radiographic findings with the exception of buttock pain, which was associated with inflammatory sacroiliitis. Neither being overweight nor pregnancy history was associated with degenerative changes in the SI joint. CONCLUSION: In a primary back pain cohort, degenerative SI joint disease may be an under-recognized clinical entity. It is strongly influenced by sex but is unrelated to degenerative changes in the lumbar spine. Currently proposed clinical discriminators performed poorly in correlating with radiographic changes in the SI joint.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".