Association between clinical and sonographic synovitis in patients with painful knee osteoarthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM AND OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the association between ultrasonographic findings of inflammation (effusion, synovitis) and clinical findings in patients with primary painful knee osteoarthritis. METHOD: This cross-sectional study was performed on 142 patients with primary painful knee osteoarthritis (American College of Rheumatology criteria) in whom the visual analogue scale of pain was 30 or more. Clinical parameters were evaluated by a rheumatologist using Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) score while the ultrasonographic examination was performed by a musculoskeletal radiologist in our center. Knee joint synovitis and effusion were defined as synovial thickness ≥ 4 mm and depth of fluid in the suprapatellar recess ≥ 4 mm, respectively. RESULTS: Sixty-eight (47.9%) patients demonstrated neither synovitis nor effusion, 37 (26.1%) had only effusion, 11 (7.7%) had only synovitis and 26 (18.3%) had both effusion and synovitis in the ultrasonographic examination. There was significant association between ultrasonographic knee arthritis (defined as presence of synovitis or effusion) and WOMAC pain sub-score, WOMAC physical function sub-score and WOMAC total score. No significant association was noted between sonographic signs of arthritis and WOMAC joint stiffness sub-score. We also found significant correlation between ultrasonographic synovitis and WOMAC pain sub-score (P < 0.001), WOMAC physical function sub-score (P < 0.001) and total WOMAC score (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: This study revealed a positive correlation between ultrasonographic synovitis and total WOMAC score, WOMAC pain and physical function sub-score. There was no association between sonographic signs of arthritis and WOMAC joint stiffness sub-score.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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".