MRI and X-ray in axial spondyloarthritis: the relationship between inflammatory and structural changes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Demonstration of an association between inflammation and spinal ankylosis has been challenging. Until the advent of MRI, prospective study was not possible due to inaccessibility of tissue. Recent studies using MRI have described an association between the presence of bone edema at vertebral corners on MRI and the subsequent development of syndesmophytes at the corresponding vertebral corners on radiography. Although reports have also highlighted the development of new syndesmophytes where the baseline MRI shows no inflammation, MRI has limited sensitivity for detection of spinal inflammation that is clearly evident on histopathology. There are also crucial methodological challenges because radiographic assessment is limited to the anterior corners of the cervical and lumbar spine while MRI lesions in the cervical spine are often small while spurious inflammatory signal is common in the lumbar spine. Follow-up MRI evaluation in two independent studies has also shown that inflammatory lesions that resolve after anti-TNF therapy are more prone to develop into syndesmophytes. It may be possible that very early inflammatory lesions resolve completely without sequelae if anti-TNF therapy is introduced before new bone formation becomes largely autonomous. For an individual patient the overall development of new bone during anti-TNF therapy may therefore depend on the balance between the number of early and more mature inflammatory lesions. Clinical trials of anti-TNF agents in early spondyloarthritis together with prospective MRI studies will allow more detailed testing of this hypothesis as a major priority for the research agenda in spondyloarthritis.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".