Spondyloarthritis Research Consortium of Canada Scoring System for Sacroiliitis in Juvenile Spondyloarthritis/Enthesitis-related Arthritis: A Reliability, Validity, and Responsiveness Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Intra- and interreader reliability, construct validity, and responsiveness of the Spondyloarthritis Research Consortium of Canada (SPARCC) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scoring system were investigated for scoring sacroiliitis in patients with juvenile spondyloarthritis (JSpA)/enthesitis-related arthritis (ERA) who have received biologic and/or nonbiologic treatment. METHODS: Ninety whole-body MRI examinations with dedicated oblique coronal planes of the sacroiliac joints in 46 patients were independently reviewed and scored by 2 pediatric musculoskeletal radiologists, blinded to clinical details, using the SPARCC system. Intra- and interreader reliability was assessed by intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC). Construct validity testing was done by (1) correlating the SPARCC MRI scores of sacroiliitis with clinical disease activity indicators (cross-sectional validity), and (2) correlating the change in the MRI score with the change in clinical indicators before and after treatment (longitudinal validity). Responsiveness of the MRI and clinical indicators was also evaluated, grouped by biologic and nonbiologic treatment. RESULTS: When applied in children with JSpA/ERA, the SPARCC showed almost perfect intra- and interreader reliability (ICC 0.79-1.00). There was poor cross-sectional and longitudinal correlation between clinical assessment indicators and MRI scoring. SPARCC scores showed higher responsiveness to treatment-related change than most clinical outcome measures. Three clinical outcome measures correlated longitudinally with SPARCC score in nonbiologic treatment: active joint count (r = 0.72, p < 0.001), FABER (Flexion, Abduction, External Rotation) test (r = 0.58, p = 0.012), and physician's global assessment (r = 0.61, p = 0.034). CONCLUSION: The SPARCC MRI scoring system is a reliable tool with relatively higher responsiveness than clinical indicators and is suitable for objective quantification of sacroiliitis when applied to pediatric patients with JSpA/ERA.
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 | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".