MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2331553399 · doi:10.3899/jrheum.100653

Calcium Pyrophosphate Crystals Detected by Ultrasound in Patients without Radiographic Evidence of Cartilage Calcifications: Figure 1A-B.

2010· article· en· W2331553399 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Marwin Gutiérrez, Luca Di Geso, Emilio Filippucci, Walter Grassi

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Rheumatology · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGout, Hyperuricemia, Uric Acid
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineChondrocalcinosisRadiographyCartilageCalciumUltrasoundCalcium pyrophosphatePyrophosphateCalcificationRadiologyCalcinosisNuclear medicineAnatomyOsteoarthritisPathologyInternal medicineNuclear magnetic resonance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There is a consistent body of evidence supporting the role of ultrasound in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA)1,2. More recently, ultrasound is gaining interest among rheumatologists for the assessment of calcium pyrophosphate dihydrate (CPPD) disease3,4,5, because it has demonstrated high specificity in the detection of pathological findings indicative of pyrophosphate crystal deposits6,7,8. The definite diagnosis of CPPD disease requires identification of CPPD crystals in the synovial fluid by polarizing light microscopy. However, aspiration of the synovial fluid is not always possible for many reasons. In those cases, imaging modalities are important as surrogate diagnostic tools. We describe 2 cases showing the diagnostic potential of ultrasound in the detection of pyrophosphate crystal deposits in patients with negative radiographic evidence of cartilage calcifications. A 58-year-old woman presented to our clinic for a history of recurrent attacks of monoarthritis at right knee level, associated …

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.256 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations21
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of RheumatologySame topicGout, Hyperuricemia, Uric AcidFrench-language works237,207