Can Achilles tendon xanthoma be distinguished from Achilles tendinopathy using Dixon method MRI? A cross-sectional exploratory study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Familial hypercholesterolemia is a genetic condition characterized by life-long elevations of plasma low-density lipoprotein cholesterol. In addition to life-threatening cardiovascular complications, intratendinous cholesterol deposits (xanthomas) can lead to pain and tendon thickening, particularly in the Achilles. Clinical detection of xanthomas currently relies upon visual assessment and palpation, or ultrasound-based measures of tendon thickening or echotexture. Misdiagnosis of xanthoma can delay the commencement of potentially life-saving lipid-lowering therapy. Our primary purpose was to determine whether analysis of separated fat and water magnetic resonance images may be able to differentiate between xanthomatic and nonxanthomatic Achilles tendons through quantification of intratendinous fat content. The main hypothesis was that Achilles tendon xanthomas will demonstrate greater lipid content than Achilles tendinopathy or healthy control tendons. METHODS: Bilateral MRI scans of Achilles tendons from 30 participants (n = 10 Achilles tendon xanthoma, n = 10 Achilles overuse tendinopathy, n = 10 healthy controls) were analyzed for total lipid content using the Dixon method of fat and water signal separation. Secondary outcome measures included tendon water content, as well as ultrasound characterization of tendon tissue organization and thickness. RESULTS: Fat content was greater in Achilles tendon xanthomas compared to the tendinopathy (p < 0.0001) and control groups (p < 0.0001). Water content was also greater in Achilles tendon xanthomas compared to the tendinopathy (p < 0.0001) and control groups (p = 0.0002). Ultrasound tissue characterization revealed worse tissue organization in Achilles tendon xanthoma tendons compared to Achilles tendinopathy (p < 0.05) but demonstrated largely overlapping distributions. Achilles tendon xanthoma tendons were, on average, significantly thicker than the tendons of the other two groups (p < 0.01 and p < 0.001, respectively). CONCLUSION: MRI-derived measures of Achilles tendon fat content may be able to distinguish xanthomas from control and tendinopathic tissue. Dixon method MRI warrants further evaluation in an adequately powered study to develop and test clinically relevant diagnostic thresholds.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".