Bibliographic record
Abstract
The association between ankylosing spondylitis (AS) and vertebral body erosion is long established. While originally thought of as a purely osteoproliferative condition leading to ankylosis, radiographic evidence of discovertebral destruction was first reported by Andersson1, and later the presence of erosion at the perimeter of the vertebral body was described by Romanus and Yden2. The stated intention of the latter publication was to “reexamine films taken at an earlier date, and previously interpreted as normal, so that we could study the very earliest stage of a syndesmophyte.” The authors then describe “very slight signs of a superficial destructive process on the vertebral bodies. This initial stage is followed by calcification, … and by ossification and structural alteration the typical syndesmophyte is formed.” Some interesting things are noteworthy from this early work: (1) Romanus and Yden were the first to describe the presence of erosion at the anterior corners of the vertebral body — a feature that is now widely known as the Romanus lesion on radiography in most radiology and rheumatology textbooks3,4. (2) They were also the first to describe the sclerotic reaction that causes the vertebra to “shine in the original x-ray film.” This feature has since been termed the “shiny corner” or “ivory corner”; although, somewhat confusingly, it is also but less often known as a “Romanus lesion.” (3) These authors were observing the sequence of radiographic events by which a syndesmophyte may be formed. They worked backwards, selecting a population of patients with syndesmophytosis, and were seeking to describe the diagnostic features of ankylosing spondylitis before the stage of calcification and ossification so as to enable earlier accurate diagnosis. So it has been clearly stated from the first publication that the presence of erosion at the corner of a … Address correspondence to Dr. Lambert; E-mail: rlambert{at}ualberta.ca
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".