Definition and Reliability Assessment of Elementary Ultrasonographic Findings in Calcium Pyrophosphate Deposition Disease: A Study by the OMERACT Calcium Pyrophosphate Deposition Disease Ultrasound Subtask Force
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To define the ultrasonographic characteristics of calcium pyrophosphate crystal (CPP) deposits in joints and periarticular tissues and to evaluate the intra- and interobserver reliability of expert ultrasonographers in the assessment of CPP deposition disease (CPPD) according to the new definitions. METHODS: After a systematic literature review, a Delphi survey was circulated among a group of expert ultrasonographers, who were members of the CPPD Ultrasound (US) Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) subtask force, to obtain definitions of the US characteristics of CPPD at the level of fibrocartilage (FC), hyaline cartilage (HC), tendon, and synovial fluid (SF). Subsequently, the reliability of US in assessing CPPD at knee and wrist levels according to the agreed definitions was tested in static images and in patients with CPPD. Cohen's κ was used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: HC and FC of the knee yielded the highest interobserver κ values among all the structures examined, in both the Web-based (0.73 for HC and 0.58 for FC) and patient-based exercises (0.55 for the HC and 0.64 for the FC). Kappa values for the other structures were lower, ranging from 0.28 in tendons to 0.50 in SF in the static exercise and from 0.09 (proximal patellar tendon) to 0.27 (triangular FC of the wrist) in the patient-based exercise. CONCLUSION: The new OMERACT definitions for the US identification of CPPD proved to be reliable at the level of the HC and FC of the knee. Further studies are needed to better define the US characteristics of CPPD and optimize the scanning technique in other anatomical sites.
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 | 0.049 | 0.093 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".