MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2094824361 · doi:10.1097/bor.0b013e32832af481

MRI in ankylosing spondylitis

2009· review· en· W2094824361 on OpenAlexaff
Walter P. Maksymowych

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Opinion in Rheumatology · 2009
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpondyloarthritis Studies and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAnkylosing spondylitisRadiologyClinical trialMagnetic resonance imagingPathologySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The past 18 months have seen multireader validation exercises assessing the reliability and discriminatory properties of MRI, longitudinal data evaluating the prognostic significance of lesions observed on MRI, and data from clinical trials assessing the predictive capacity of MRI for major clinical response. Studies using new MRI-based technologies in ankylosing spondylitis have also been described. RECENT FINDINGS: The reliability and discrimination of scoring systems for both sacroiliac joint and spinal inflammation using MRI are now sufficiently well validated to be used in the short-term clinical trial assessment of the anti-inflammatory efficacy of novel therapeutic agents. The finding of inflammatory lesions on MRI is also of prognostic significance for structural damage. MRI examination contributes to clinical and laboratory evaluation in the selection of patients likely to respond to antitumor necrosis factor agents. Newer MRI-based techniques such as whole-body MRI permit a broader scope of diagnostic ascertainment. SUMMARY: MRI continues to assume an increasingly important role in the diagnostic, prognostic, and therapeutic assessment of patients with ankylosing spondylitis.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.006
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.003

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 head0.099
GPT teacher head0.419
Teacher spread0.320 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations45
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Opinion in RheumatologySame topicSpondyloarthritis Studies and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207