An Assessment of Hand Erosive Osteoarthritis: Correlation of Radiographic Severity with Clinical, Functional and Laboratory Findings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The present study aimed (a) to evaluate the clinical and radiographic characteristics of hand erosive osteoarthritis (EOA) in a group of consecutive patients, (b) to correlate the severity of radiographic involvement with clinical and laboratory findings and (c) to associate the levels of pain and functional impairment with some radiographic findings. METHODS: Patients with EOA were consecutively enrolled. Inclusion criteria required the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) criteria for hand osteoarthritis and the presence of at least one joint in "E" or "R" phase according to Verbruggen-Veys. For each patient, demographic and clinical data were collected including evaluation of pain and function with the Australian Canadian Osteoarthritis Hand Index (AUSCAN) scale and Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ). Laboratory parameters and plain radiography of both hands were also collected. Each radiograph was evaluated in accordance with the Verbruggen-Veys classification and scored with the Kallman score. RESULTS: During the study period 60 patients (M/F 13:47) with EAO were enrolled. More severe radiographic disease ("E" or "R") was often found at II and III distal interphalangeal (IP) joints. In addition, Kallman score, presence of osteophytes, erosions and joint space narrowing correlated significantly with duration of symptoms, AUSCAN, pain and active joints. More severe radiographic involvement was associated with AUSCAN and with the presence of ankylosis only at proximal IP joints. CONCLUSION: The present study showed that EOA is characterised by a significant correlation between radiographic involvement and some clinical characteristics of the disease. However, an impairment of joint function was mainly associated to radiological proximal IP joint involvement, but not with other symptoms such as pain.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".