Value of International Prophylaxis Study Group(IPSG) magnetic resonance imaging scale system in the evaluation of hemophiliac arthropathy joint changes in children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective The International Prophylaxis Study Group(IPSG) magnetic resonance imaging(MRI) scale was used to evaluate the severity of haemophilic arthropathy joints and analyze the correlation of MRI performance and clinical factors.Methods Sagittal and coronal T1W,T2W and T2W FFE MRI images of knees,ankles and elbows were obtained from 22 joints of 18 boys who were clinically diagnosed hemophilia were studied [age range from 2 to 15 years;mean(8.06±3.37) years] with moderate and severe hemophilia diagnosed in our hospital.The severity of hemophilia from soft tissue and osteochondral domains with the IPSG MRI scale system was assessed.Results The soft tissue domain of 22 joints were appraised with regard to frequency of findings: effusion,18/22(81.8%);synovial hypertrophy,20/22(90.9%);hemosiderin deposition,19/22(86.4%).The severity of soft tissue joint changes on MRI was mild,9/22(40.4%);moderate,7/22(31.8%);and severe 6/22(27.3%),respectively.The severity of osteochondral joints changes on MRI was normal,8/22(36.4%);mild,3/22(13.6%);moderate,7/22(31.8%);and severe,4/22(18.2%),respectively.The frequency of bone erosions was 14/22(63.6%),bone cysts,9/22(40.9%),and cartilage loss,14/22(63.6%).The intrareader reliability for each item of the IPSG MRI scale was excellent by Kappa analysis.The correlations between the osteochondral domain of the MRI scale and bleeding frequency as well as patients' age were moderate(r=0.501,P=0.018;r=0.557,P=0.007).The correlation between the IPSG final score and patients' age was also moderate(r=0.543,P=0.009).The correlation between age at first bleed and presence of subchondral cysts was moderate(r=-0.479,P=0.044)as well.Otherwise,no significant correlations were noted between items of the soft tissue domain and clinical factors(|r|0.3).Conclusion The IPSG scoring system is highly reliable within readers' interpretation,is able to discriminate severity of joint changes in HA and provide detailed evaluation of soft tissue and osteochondral joint components.However,its correlation with clinical constructs is suboptimal.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".