Development and Validation of 3 Preliminary MRI Sacroiliac Joint Composite Structural Damage Scores in a 5-year Longitudinal Axial Spondyloarthritis Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective. In axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA), sacroiliac joint (SIJ) erosion is often followed by fat metaplasia in an erosion cavity (backfill), and subsequently ankylosis. We aimed to combine the Spondyloarthritis Research Consortium of Canada (SPARCC) SIJ structural score for erosion, backfill, and ankylosis into 3 versions of a novel preliminary axSpA magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) SIJ Composite Structural Damage Score (CSDS) and to test these. Methods. Thirty-three patients with axSpA, followed for 5 years after initiation of tumor necrosis factor inhibitor, had MRIs of the SIJs at baseline, and yearly thereafter. Three versions of CSDS were calculated based on different weightings of erosion, backfill, and ankylosis: (1) equal weighting: CSDSequal = (erosion × 0.5) + backfill + ankylosis; (2) advanced stages weighting more: CSDSstepwise = (erosion × 1) + (backfill × 4) + (ankylosis × 6); and (3) advanced stages overruling earlier stages (“hierarchical”) with “<” meaning “overruled by”: CSDShierarchical = (erosion × 1) < (backfill × 4) < (ankylosis × 6). Results. At baseline, all CSDS correlated positively with SPARCC fat and ankylosis scores and modified New York radiography grading, and negatively with the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Index and SPARCC SIJ inflammation scores. CSDSstepwise and CSDShierarchical (not CSDSequal) correlated positively with symptom duration and the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Metrology Index, and closer with SPARCC ankylosis score and modified New York radiography grading than CSDSequal. The adjusted annual progression rate for CSDSstepwise and CSDShierarchical (not CSDSequal) was higher the first year compared with fourth year (P = 0.04 and P = 0.01). Standardized response mean (baseline to Week 46) was moderate for CSDShierarchical (0.64) and CSDSstepwise (0.59) and small for CSDSequal (0.25). Conclusion. Particularly CSDSstepwise and CSDShierarchical showed construct validity and responsiveness, encouraging further validation in larger clinical trials. The potential clinical implication is assessment of SIJ damage progression by 1 composite score.
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 | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".