Analysis of dedicated sacroiliac views to improve reliability of conventional pelvic radiographs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To compare the antero-posterior (AP) pelvis view with the Ferguson view of the SI joint in order to resolve whether one modality has a clear advantage for grading of sacroiliitis. Methods: One hundred and nine patients fulfilling Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society (ASAS) criteria for axial spondyloarthritis who had AP pelvis and Ferguson views on the same day were identified from an axial spondyloarthritis clinic registry. Two rheumatologists independently scored the AP pelvis and Ferguson views according to modified New York (NY) criteria. Intra- and inter-reader agreements were obtained for both evaluations by using the kappa statistic and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Any change in diagnostic category dictated by the Ferguson vs the AP pelvis views was also evaluated. Results: A total of 266 radiographs were read from 109 patients. Intra-observer reliability of the observers showed similar ICC scores; this was also reflected in the kappa for diagnosis of AS fulfilling modified NY criteria between the observers. The inter-rater agreement showed similar kappa values between the two modalities. When separately evaluating SI joints with score grading of 0-2, grade 2 showed the lowest kappa, reaching a low of 0.1 and 0.19 for the right SI joint for Ferguson and AP pelvis views, respectively. Both modalities were concordant diagnostically; reclassification from AS to non-AS and vice versa was in the range 5-11%. Conclusion: There was general agreement between the Ferguson and AP pelvis X-ray ICC and kappa scores. Either modality can be employed to evaluate the SI joint for sacroiliitis with the Ferguson view showing no clear superiority over the standard AP pelvis view.
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 | 0.006 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".