Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Psoriatic Arthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aims of this study were to describe the indications for, and features of, axial/peripheral joint magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and to examine the influence of MRI findings on clinical practice. METHODS: All axial and peripheral (hand and/or foot) MRI scans on patients attending the Toronto PsA clinic l between 2003 and 2014 were included. Scan details were garnered from the radiologist's official report. A chart review was performed to determine if MRI findings contributed to a change of treatment. RESULTS: One hundred sixty-eight scans were performed on 125 patients (135 axial and 33 peripheral). The mean age was 50.5 (SD, 11.5) years, with 51.2% being female. Mean duration of PsA was 11.2 (SD, 10.9) years. Of the axial scans, the majority were performed on the whole spine (excluding the sacrum) (27.4%) or the sacroiliac joints and spine together (45.2%). The predominant indications were for suspected inflammatory (51.1%) or degenerative (24.4%) disease. Magnetic resonance imaging revealed inflammatory and/or structural change in 34.1% versus 54.8% with degenerative changes. In MRI axial inflammation (n = 25), the majority (48%) had sacroiliac joint involvement, whereas 28% had inflammation at 2 or more sites.Of the periphery, 60.6% of scans were on hands and 21.2% were on feet alone. The main indications were for suspected subclinical synovitis (78.8%). Inflammatory arthritis was the MRI diagnosis in 72.7%. Magnetic resonance imaging findings influenced treatment change (n = 32) in 56.3%, but were insufficient to effect treatment change without clinical findings (100%). CONCLUSIONS: Magnetic resonance imaging is useful in evaluating patients with active PsA, particularly when suspecting inflammation and radiographic findings are unhelpful. In some cases, it can be used as an adjunct to clinical examination in determining treatment change.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".