Correlates of Axial Gout: A Cross-sectional Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: A cross-sectional study was undertaken to determine the prevalence of axial gout in patients with established gouty arthritis and to analyze clinical, laboratory, and radiological correlations. METHODS: Forty-eight subjects with a history of gouty arthritis (American College of Rheumatology criteria) for ≥ 3 years under poor control were included. Subjects underwent history, physical examination, laboratory testing, and imaging studies, including radiographs of the hands and feet and computerized tomography (CT) of the cervical and lumbar spines and sacroiliac joints (SIJ). Patients with characteristic erosions and/or tophi in the spine or SIJ were considered to have axial or spinal gout. RESULTS: Seventeen patients (35%) had CT evidence of spinal erosions and/or tophi, with tophi identified in 7 of the 48 subjects (15%). The spinal location of axial gout was cervical in 7 patients (15%), lumbar in 16 (94%), SIJ in 1 (6%), and more than 1 location in 14 (82%). Duration of gout, presence of back pain, and serum uric acid levels did not correlate with axial gout. Extremity radiographs characteristic of gouty arthropathy found in 21 patients (45%) were strongly correlated with CT evidence of axial gout (p < 0.001). All patients with tophi in the spine had abnormal hand or feet radiographs (p = 0.005). CONCLUSION: Axial gout may be a common feature of chronic gouty arthritis. The lack of correlation with back pain, the infrequent use of CT imaging in patients with back pain, and the lack of recognition of the problem of spinal involvement in gouty arthritis suggest that this diagnosis is often missed.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".