The Contributions of Whole-body Magnetic Resonance Imaging for the Diagnosis and Management of Chronic Recurrent Multifocal Osteomyelitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A form of the disease today known as chronic recurrent multifocal osteomyelitis (CRMO) was described in 1972 by Giedion, et al as “Subacute and chronic symmetrical osteomyelitis.”1 The authors described the findings of multiple symmetrical lesions in the metaphyses of bone that resembled infectious osteomyelitis; however, no organism could be isolated. More than 40 years later, their initial description, which may be summarized by chronicity, multifocality, symmetry, metaphyseal predilection, and lack of identification of an infectious organ remains remarkably accurate. The condition has been described with a multitude of different names; however, chronic recurrent multifocal osteomyelitis, which is documented as early as 19782, remains commonly used. Although CRMO appears to be diagnosed correctly with increasing frequency, the true prevalence is unknown. This may be due, at least in part, to the variability of clinical presentation. Signs and symptoms may be subtle, inflammatory markers may be normal, and osseous lesions may be clinically undetectable. A notorious characteristic of CRMO appears to be the discrepancy between a frequently underestimated burden of osseous inflammation based on clinical examination, laboratory inflammatory markers, and radiography, and the … Address correspondence to Dr. Fritz. E-mail: jfritz9{at}jhmi.edu
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 | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".