Development and Reliability of the OMERACT Thumb Base Osteoarthritis Magnetic Resonance Imaging Scoring System
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To develop the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) thumb base osteoarthritis (OA) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scoring system (TOMS) for the assessment of inflammatory and structural abnormalities in this hand OA subset, and test its cross-sectional reliability. METHODS: Included features and their scaling were agreed upon by members of the OMERACT MRI Task Force using the Hand OA MRI scoring system as a template. A reliability exercise was performed in which 3 readers participated, using a preliminary atlas with examples to facilitate reading. Each reader independently scored a set of 20 MRI (coronal and axial T1- and T2-weighted fat-suppressed images, of which 5 included T1-weighted fat-suppressed post-Gadolinium images). Intra- and inter-reader reliability were assessed using ICC, percentage exact agreement (PEA), and percentage close agreement (PCA). RESULTS: The TOMS assessed the first carpometacarpal (CMC-1) and scaphotrapeziotrapezoid (STT) joints for synovitis, subchondral bone defects (including erosions, cysts, and bone attrition), osteophytes, cartilage, and bone marrow lesions on a 0-3 scale (normal to severe). Subluxation was evaluated only in the CMC-1 joint (absent/present). Reliability of scoring for both joints was comparable. Interreader ICC were good for all features (0.77-0.99 and 0.74-0.96 for CMC-1 and STT joints, respectively). Intrareader reliability analyses gave similar results. PCA was ≥ 65% for all features. PEA was low to moderate, with better performance for subchondral bone defects, subluxation, and bone marrow lesions. CONCLUSION: A thumb base OA MRI scoring system has been developed. The OMERACT TOMS demonstrated good intrareader and interreader reliability. Longitudinal studies are warranted to investigate reliability of change scores and responsiveness.
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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".