MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2942937445 · doi:10.3899/jrheum.181049

Quantitative Magnetic Resonance Imaging Has Potential for Assessment of Spondyloarthritis: Arguments for its Study and Use

2019· letter· en· W2942937445 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Margaret Hall‐Craggs, Timothy Bray, Coziana Ciurtin, Alan Bainbridge

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Rheumatology · 2019
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone and Joint Diseases
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersVersus ArthritisRosetrees TrustNational Institute for Health and Care Research
KeywordsMagnetic resonance imagingDiffusion MRIMedicineComputer scienceMedical physicsRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We read with interest the recent paper on diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) as a means of supporting the diagnosis of ankylosing spondylitis1, and the corresponding editorial questioning the role of DWI2. The paper1 adds to the growing body of evidence supporting the use of DWI to characterize and quantify inflammation in patients with spondyloarthritis (SpA)3,4. The corresponding editorial argues that DWI is of limited clinical use, and the authors’ main criticisms are summarized as follows: 1. Any sequence can be measured numerically, and this is a facility not confined to DWI. 2. The number of steps required for normalizing measurements and choosing regions of interest (ROI) depends on review of the initial qualitative images and is subjective. 3. The variable diffusion of background marrow poses further challenges for DWI. However, if we look in greater detail at the existing literature on quantitative imaging, it is apparent that many of these issues can be addressed, and indeed there are multiple advantages that quantitative techniques … Address correspondence to Prof. M.A. Hall-Craggs, 2nd Floor, Charles Bell House, 43-45 Foley St., London W1W 7TS, UK. E-mail: margaret.hall-craggs{at}nhs.net

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)0.035
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.194
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score0.187

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0350.194
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.018
Scholarly communication0.0050.014
Open science0.0040.003
Research integrity0.0360.056
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.005

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.287 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations6
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of RheumatologySame topicBone and Joint DiseasesFrench-language works237,207