The OMERACT Ultrasound Task Force — Advances and Priorities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article reports the most recent work of the OMERACT Ultrasound Task Force (post OMERACT 8) and highlights of future research priorities discussed at the OMERACT 9 meeting, Kananaskis, Canada, May 2008. Results of 3 studies were presented: (1) assessing intermachine reliability; (2) applying the scoring system developed in the hand to other joints most commonly affected in rheumatoid arthritis (RA); and (3) assessing interobserver reliability on a deep target joint (shoulder). Results demonstrated good intermachine reliability between multiple examiners, and good applicability of the scoring system for the hand on other joints (including shoulder). Study conclusions were discussed and a future research agenda was generated, notably the further development of a Global OMERACT Sonography Scoring (GLOSS) system in RA, emphasizing the importance of testing feasibility and added value over standard clinical variables. Future disease areas of importance to develop include a scoring system for enthesitis and osteoarthritis.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.089 | 0.056 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".