Prevalence of small osteophytes on knee MRI in several large clinical and population-based studies of various age groups and OA risk factors
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Osteophytes, also small ones, are an important imaging feature of OA. However, due to their high prevalence on MR, the question has arisen whether these are truly pathophysiologic features of early OA, a result of physiologic aging, or rather a merely transient phenomenon. The aim of this study was to explore the prevalence of osteophytes on MR in various locations of the knee, with special emphasis on small osteophytes, across multiple large studies conducted in our institution comprising a wide range of subjects at different ages. Method: Retrospective explorative study of the prevalence of osteophytes, particularly grade 1 according to MOAKS, among four studies with a wide variety in age and OA risk factors. Results: A large number of grade 1 osteophytes were found in all four studies. The largest number of osteophytes were present in the youngest age group of <30 years (69.6%) compared to 36.8% in the age group of ≥30 < 50 years and 54,3% when aged ≥50 years, of which most were grade 1 osteophytes. Conclusion: Small osteophytes are highly prevalent among populations with varying age and OA risk factors, in particular among young subjects without other OA features. This might suggest that these "osteophytes" do not necessarily represent early OA, but rather indicate a transient physiologic phenomenon.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 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 it