Diagnostic Performance of Ultrasonography for Evaluation of Osteoarthritis of Ankle Joint: Comparison With Radiography, Cone‐Beam <scp>CT</scp>, and Symptoms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To determine the diagnostic performance of ultrasonography (US) for evaluation of the ankle joint osteoarthritic (OA) changes. Cone-beam computed tomography (CT) was used as the gold standard and US performance was compared with conventional radiography (CR). As a secondary aim, associations between the imaging findings and ankle symptoms were assessed. METHODS: US was performed to 51 patients with ankle OA. Every patient had prior ankle CR and underwent cone-beam CT during the same day as US examination. On US, effusion/synovitis, osteophytes, talar cartilage damage, and tenosynovitis were evaluated. Comparison to respective imaging findings on CR and cone-beam CT was then performed. Single radiologist blinded to other modalities assessed all the imaging studies. Symptoms questionnaire, the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), was available for 48 patients. RESULTS: US detected effusion/synovitis of the talocrural joint with 45% sensitivity and 90% specificity. For the detection of anterior talocrural osteophytes, US sensitivity was 78% and specificity 79%. For the medial talocrural osteophytes, they were 39 and 83%, and for the lateral talocrural osteophytes 54 and 100%, respectively. Considering cartilage damage of the talus, US yielded a low sensitivity of 18% and high specificity of 97%. Overall, the performance of US was only moderate and comparable to CR. The imaging findings showed only weak associations with ankle symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: The ability of US to detect ankle OA is only moderate. Interestingly, performance of CR also remained moderate. The associations between imaging findings and WOMAC score seem to be weak in ankle OA.
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 | 0.008 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".