Recommendations for acquisition and interpretation of MRI of the spine and sacroiliac joints in the diagnosis of axial spondyloarthritis in the UK
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To develop evidence-based recommendations on the use of MRI in the diagnosis of axial SpA (axSpA). METHODS: A working group comprising nine rheumatologists and nine musculoskeletal radiologists with an interest in axSpA was established, with support from the British Society of Spondyloarthritis (BRITSpA). Two meetings were held. In the first meeting, research questions were formulated. In the second meeting, the results of a systematic literature review designed to inform the recommendations were reviewed. An anonymized Delphi process was used to formulate the final set of recommendations. For each recommendation, the level of evidence and strength of recommendation was determined. The level of agreement was assessed using a 0-10 numerical rating scale. RESULTS: Two overarching principles were formulated, as follows: The diagnosis of axSpA is based on clinical, laboratory and imaging features (overarching principle 1), and patients with axSpA can have isolated inflammation of either the sacroiliac joints or the spine (overarching principle 2). Seven recommendations addressing the use of MRI in the assessment of patients with suspected axSpA were formulated, covering topics including recommended sequences, anatomical coverage, acquisition parameters and interpretation of active and structural MRI lesions. The level of agreement for each recommendation was very high (range 8.8-9.8). CONCLUSION: A joint rheumatology and radiology consensus on the acquisition and interpretation of MRI in axSpA diagnosis was achieved, and a research agenda formulated. This consensus should help standardize practice around MRI and ensure a more informed, consistent approach to the diagnosis of axSpA.
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 | 0.090 | 0.280 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.018 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.004 |
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".