MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2797999946 · doi:10.1002/acr.23575

Association of Knee Effusion Detected by Physical Examination With Bone Marrow Lesions: Cross‐Sectional and Longitudinal Analyses of a Population‐Based Cohort

2018· article· en· W2797999946 on OpenAlexafffund
Jolanda Cibere, Ali Guermazi, Savvas Nicolaou, John M. Esdaile, Anona Thorne, Joel Singer, Hubert Wong, Jacek A. Kopec, Eric C. Sayre

Bibliographic record

VenueArthritis Care & Research · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOsteoarthritis Treatment and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryResearch CanadaUniversity of British Columbia
FundersCanadian Arthritis NetworkCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchArthritis Society
KeywordsMedicineCohortPopulationInternal medicineOdds ratioEffusionIncidence (geometry)Body mass indexKnee painConfidence intervalCohort studyPhysical examinationCross-sectional studySurgeryOsteoarthritisPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To determine the association of effusion detected by physical examination with the prevalence of bone marrow lesions (BMLs) on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and the incidence/progression of BMLs over 3 years in subjects with knee osteoarthritis. METHODS: A population-based cohort with knee pain (n = 255) was assessed for effusion on physical examination. On MRI, BMLs were graded 0-3 (none, mild, moderate, severe), and incidence/progression was defined as a worsening of the sum of BML scores over 6 surfaces by ≥1 grade. We analyzed the full cohort and a mild disease subsample with a Kellgren/Lawrence (K/L) grade <3. Cross-sectional logistic and longitudinal exponential regression analyses were performed, adjusted for age, sex, body mass index (BMI) and pain. We calculated sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) for effusion detected by physical examination versus BMLs (prevalence and incidence/progression). RESULTS: The weighted mean age was 56.7 years, the mean BMI was 26.5, 56.3% were women, 20.1% had effusion on physical examination, and 80.7% had a K/L grade <3. Effusion on physical examination was significantly associated with prevalent BMLs in the full cohort (odds ratio [OR] 6.10 [95% confidence interval (95% CI) 2.77-13.44]) and in the K/L grade <3 cohort (OR 6.88 [95% CI 2.76-17.15]). In the full cohort, sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV were 34.6, 92.5, 79.9, and 62.1%, respectively, and in the K/L <3 cohort 31.7, 94.0, 75.5, and 70.1%, respectively. Longitudinally, effusion on physical examination was not significantly associated with BML incidence/progression in the full cohort (hazard ratio [HR] 1.83 [95% CI 0.95-3.52]) or in the K/L grade <3 cohort (HR 1.73 [95% CI 0.69-4.33]). In the two cohorts, sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV were 32.0, 82.2, 42.2, and 74.9%, respectively, and 21.2, 85.6, 30.1, and 78.8% respectively. CONCLUSION: BMLs on MRI can be predicted from physical examination effusion cross-sectionally, with a high PPV of 79.9%. Assessment for knee effusion on physical examination is useful for determining potential candidates with BMLs before costly MRI screening for recruitment into clinical trials.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.371
Teacher spread0.333 · 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

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArthritis Care & Research→Same topicOsteoarthritis Treatment and Mechanisms→French-language works237,207→