MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2164259989 · doi:10.3899/jrheum.131085

Update on the OMERACT Magnetic Resonance Imaging Task Force: Research and Future Directions

2013· article· en· W2164259989 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Philip G. Conaghan, Fiona M. McQueen, Paul Bird, Charles Peterfy, Espen A. Haavardsholm, Frédérique Gandjbakhch, Iris Eshed, I.K. Haugen, Siri Lillegraven, Uffe Møller Døhn, Bo Ejbjerg, Violaine Foltz, Laura C. Coates, Pernille Bøyesen, Kay‐Geert Hermann, Jane Freeston, Marissa Lassere, Philip O’Connor, Paul Emery, Harry K. Genant, Mikkel Østergaard

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Rheumatology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAdvanced MRI Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersVersus ArthritisNational Institute for Health and Care Research
KeywordsMedicineTask forceMagnetic resonance imagingTask (project management)Nuclear magnetic resonanceMedical physicsNuclear medicineRadiologyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) provides an important biomarker across a range of rheumatological diseases. At the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) 11 meeting, the MRI task force continued its work of developing and improving the use of MRI outcomes for use in clinical trials. The breadth of pathology in the Rheumatoid Arthritis MRI Score has been strengthened with further work on the development of a joint space narrowing score, and a series of exercises presented at OMERACT 11 demonstrated good reliability and construct validity for this assessment. Understanding the importance of residual inflammation after RA treatment remains a major focus of the group's work. Analyses were presented on defining the level of synovitis (using MRI scores of a single hand) that would predict absence of erosion progression. The development of the OMERACT Hand Osteoarthritis MRI score has continued with substantial work presented on its iterative development, including pathology definition, scaling, and subsequent reliability of the score. Optimizing the role of MRI as a robust biomarker and surrogate outcome remains a priority for this group.

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)0.032
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.058
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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.168

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0320.058
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0050.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0060.007
Open science0.0040.003
Research integrity0.0080.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.011

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.315 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations3
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Rheumatology→Same topicAdvanced MRI Techniques and Applications→French-language works237,207→