Comparison of 1.0-T Extremity MR and 1.5-T Conventional High-Field-Strength MR in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To prospectively determine the comparability of 1.0-T extremity magnetic resonance (MR) imaging and 1.5-T conventional MR for the evaluation of the hand and wrist in assessment of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Institutional ethics approval and written informed consent were obtained. Thirty-two patients (30 women, two men; mean age, 52 years) with RA twice underwent MR of either the most symptomatic hand (n = 21) or wrist (n = 11), once performed with a 1.0-T extremity MR system and once with a 1.5-T conventional MR system. The MR examinations were independently assessed by two radiologists blinded to imaging platform and patient clinical information for erosions, synovitis, and bone marrow edema (BME), according to the Rheumatoid Arthritis MR Imaging Score (RAMRIS). One radiologist reevaluated all cases a second time to determine the intraobserver variability for each system. Patient comfort was assessed with a questionnaire. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) and smallest detectable differences (SDDs) were measured. RESULTS: ICCs for intermachine agreement were 0.97-0.99 for erosions, 0.88-0.97 for synovitis, and 0.98-0.99 for BME for both readers. The SDDs between the two systems, expressed as a percentage of the maximum score, ranged from 3.3% to 12.2% for erosions, from 7.4% to 14.8% for synovitis, and from 5% to 9.9% for BME for both readers. ICCs for interreader agreement ranged from 0.69 to 0.99 and for intrareader agreement, from 0.88 to 0.99. There were substantial differences in the subjective patient assessment of confinement, system noise, and difficulty with immobilization, and 95.8% of patients preferred examinations performed with extremity MR. CONCLUSION: The 1.0-T extremity MR system demonstrates synovial and osseous changes in RA equally as well as a 1.5-T conventional MR system and is preferred by patients.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".