Distinguishing Gouty Arthritis from Calcium Pyrophosphate Disease and Other Arthritides
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Differentiating gout, calcium pyrophosphate deposition disease (CPPD), and non-crystal-related inflammatory arthropathies (non-CRA) is essential but often clinically impossible. The sonographic double contour (DC) sign may have good specificity for gout in highly specialized centers, but it can be challenging to use it to distinguish gout from cartilage hyperenhancements in CPPD. We evaluated the diagnostic value of the DC sign alone and in combination with Doppler signals and uric acid (UA) levels in patients with acute arthritis. METHODS: We retrospectively investigated 225 acutely inflamed joints and documented the presence of DC, Doppler hypervascularization, and serum UA (SUA) levels. All patients underwent synovial fluid (SF) analysis. Sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive values were calculated, and correlation analyses and a binary regression model were used to investigate their diagnostic values. RESULTS: The sensitivity of DC sign for crystalline arthritides was 85% and specificity 80%. Its specificity for gout was 64%, for CPPD 52%. In contrast to non-CRA hypervascularization, degree 2 and 3 Doppler signals were highly associated with gout and less with CPPD (p < 0.01). The combination of DC sign with hypervascularization and elevated UA levels increased specificity for gout to more than 90% and resulted in a 7-fold increase of the likelihood of diagnosis of gout (p < 0.01), but with a loss of sensitivity (42%). CONCLUSION: The DC sign alone is suitable for predicting crystal-related arthropathies, but it cannot reliably distinguish gout from CPPD in everyday clinical routine. Combining hypervascularization and SUA levels increases the diagnostic value, leading us to propose a diagnostic algorithm.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".