MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2775273922 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0189569

Bone edema on magnetic resonance imaging is highly associated with low bone mineral density in patients with ankylosing spondylitis

2017· article· en· W2775273922 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Wang Danmin, Zhiduo Hou, Yao Gong, Su-Biao Chen, Ling Lin, Zhengyu Xiao

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpondyloarthritis Studies and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersScience and Technology Planning Project of Guangdong ProvinceShantou University Medical CollegeDepartment of Education of Guangdong ProvinceShantou UniversityNatural Science Foundation of Guangdong ProvinceNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsMedicineBone mineralAnkylosing spondylitisMagnetic resonance imagingOsteoporosisOsteopeniaFemurBone densityTrabecular bone scoreBASDAIInternal medicineNuclear medicineQuantitative computed tomographyRadiologySurgeryArthritis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess the relationship between bone marrow edema (BME) on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and bone mineral density (BMD) in patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS). METHODS: The study included 333 patients with AS who underwent BMD measurements and axial MRI. Additionally, 106 normal controls were included. The modified New York criteria were used as the classification criteria of AS. Clinical, laboratory, and imaging data were collected and analyzed. Lumbar spine and proximal femur BMD were assessed using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. Low BMD was defined by a Z-score ≤-2. The Spondyloarthritis Research Consortium of Canada (SPARCC) MRI index was used to assess inflammation at the sacroiliac joint (SIJ) and spine. RESULTS: Among the 333 patients, the male:female ratio was 4.6:1, mean patient age was 28.5±10.6 years, and mean disease duration was 7.3±6.8 years. The prevalences of low BMD, osteopenia, and osteoporosis were significantly higher among AS patients than among controls (19.8%, 62.8%, and 5.7% vs. 4.7%, 33.0%, and 0%, respectively, P = 0.000). The BMD values were significantly lower and prevalences of low BMD at both the spine and femur were significantly higher among patients with BME on MRI than among those without BME. Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that male sex (OR 3.87, 95% CI 1.21-7.36, P = 0.023), high ASDAS-CRP score (OR 2.83, 95% CI 1.36-4.76, P = 0.015), the presence of BME on sacroiliac MRI (OR 2.83, 95% CI 1.77-6.23, P = 0.000) and spinal MRI (OR 4.06, 95% CI 1.96-8.46, P = 0.000), and high grade of sacroiliitis (OR 2.93, 95% CI 1.82-4.45, P = 0.002) were risk factors for low BMD (any site). The SPARCC scores of the SIJ were negatively correlated with femoral BMD (r = -0.22, 95% CI -0.33 to -0.10, P = 0.000). Additionally, the SPARCC scores of the spine were negatively correlated with BMD values (r = -0.23, 95% CI -0.36 to -0.09, P = 0.003) and Z-scores (r = -0.24, 95% CI -0.36 to -0.12, P = 0.001) at the spine. CONCLUSION: Low BMD is common in AS patients. BME on MRI is highly associated with low BMD at both the spine and femur.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.199 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations32
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONE→Same topicSpondyloarthritis Studies and Treatments→French-language works237,207→