Validation of assessment methods for the apparent diffusion coefficient in a clinical trial of axial spondyloarthritis patients treated with golimumab
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare three region-of-interest (ROI) settings in the assessment of ADC in a clinical trial, and to evaluate the effectiveness of ADC in assessing therapy-induced changes and predicting clinical outcomes. METHODS: In a 52-week clinical trial involving patients with axial spondyloarthritis, mean sacroiliac joint (SIJ) ADC measurements using structured, lesion-based, and index-lesion ROI-settings were assessed at baseline and weeks 4, 16, and 52. Variation among the three ROI-settings, correlations with Spondyloarthritis Research Consortium of Canada (SPARCC)-bone marrow edema (BME) SIJ inflammation indices, standardized response means (SRMs), and effectiveness in predicting clinical outcomes were analyzed. RESULTS: (SRM:0.54-0.67). Baseline ADC and changes in ADC did not predict clinical outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Lesion-based and index-lesion ROI ADC could both be used to evaluate the effectiveness of tumor necrosis factor inhibitor therapy. None of the methods could predict clinical outcomes.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".