Imaging Outcomes for Axial Spondyloarthritis and Sensitivity to Change: A <scp>Five‐Year</scp> Analysis of the <scp>DESIR</scp> Cohort
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the sensitivity to change of different imaging scoring methods in patients with early axial spondyloarthritis (SpA). METHODS: Patients from the Devenir des Spondylarthropathies Indifferérenciées Récentes (DESIR) cohort fulfilling the Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society criteria for axial SpA were included. Radiographs and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the sacroiliac (SI) joints and spine were obtained at baseline, 1, 2, and 5 years. Each image was scored by 2 or 3 readers in 3 separate reading waves. The rate of change of outcomes measuring inflammation of the spine and SI joints (e.g., Spondyloarthritis Research Consortium of Canada [SPARCC] score) and structural damage on MRI (e.g., ≥3 fatty lesions) and radiographs (e.g., modified New York grading) was assessed using multilevel generalized estimating equation models (taking all readers and waves into account). To allow comparisons across outcomes, rates were standardized (difference between the individual's value and the population mean divided by the SD). RESULTS: In total, 345 patients were included. Inflammation detected on MRI of the SI joints (MRI-SI joints) (standardized rate range -0.278, -0.441) was more sensitive to change compared to spinal inflammation (range -0.030, -0.055). Structural damage in the SI joints showed a higher standardized rate of change on MRI-SI joints (range 0.015, 0.274) compared to radiography of the SI joints (range 0.043, 0.126). MRI-SI joints damage defined by ≥3 fatty lesions showed the highest sensitivity to change (0.274). Spinal structural damage slowly progressed over time with no meaningful difference between radiographic (range 0.037, 0.043) and MRI structural outcomes (range 0.008, 0.027). CONCLUSION: Structural damage assessed in pelvic radiographs has low sensitivity to change, while fatty lesions detected on MRI-SI joints are a promising alternative. In contrast, MRI of the spine is not better than radiography of the spine in detecting structural changes in patients with early axial SpA.
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 | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".