MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2108796404 · doi:10.1093/rheumatology/ker009

Comment on: Bone marrow lesions in people with knee osteoarthritis predict progression of disease and joint replacement: a longitudinal study: reply

2011· article· en· W2108796404 on OpenAlexaff
Stephanie K. Tanamas, Anita E. Wluka, J.-P. Pelletier, J. Martel-Pelletier, F. Abram, Philip Berry, Yuanyuan Wang, Graeme Jones, Flavia Cicuttini

Bibliographic record

VenueLara D. Veeken · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone and Joint Diseases
Canadian institutionsHôpital Notre-Dame
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineOsteoarthritisJoint diseaseBone marrowLongitudinal studyJoint replacementDiseaseKnee JointPhysical therapySurgeryInternal medicinePathologyArthroplastyAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sir, Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the letter from Crema and colleagues [1] about our recent article [2]. They have commented on the assessment of bone marrow lesions (BMLs) using MRI from a radiological perspective. While this is important, as previously mentioned in a reply [3] to a similar comment from the same group [4], these comments are made in the absence of any data comparing the reliability and sensitivity of T1- and T2-weighted images in detecting the presence of BMLs and their changes in size over time in knee OA patients. Indeed, a review of published studies does not seem to support this view, including publications from this group. The fact that T2-weighted sequences may show bigger BML size is not necessarily better and may be a simplistic view of this particular study and other similar works. Until accurate comparative studies are conducted, the above issue will remain based only on qualitative assessment and impression rather than conclusions from reliable scientific observations.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.057
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.045

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.057
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0260.026
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.006

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.241 · 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
GenreEditorial

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

Citations1
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLara D. VeekenSame topicBone and Joint DiseasesFrench-language works237,207