Successful Evaluation of Spinal Mobility Measurements With the Epionics SPINE Device in Patients With Axial Spondyloarthritis Compared to Controls
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Epionics SPINE (ES), a novel device that measures spinal movements using electronic sensors including range of motion (RoM) and speed (range of kinematics [RoK]), has already been validated in patients with mechanical back pain and healthy individuals. This study aimed to evaluate ES for quantification of spinal mobility in patients with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA). METHODS: A total of 153 individuals, 39 female and 114 male, were examined including 134 patients with axSpA, of whom 40 had nonradiographic (nr)-axSpA, 94 had radiographic (r)-axSpA; 19 were healthy controls (HCs). The results were compared using mean ES scores and modeling was performed using multivariable logistic regression models resulting in good validity and high discriminative power. RESULTS: > -0.39). Patients with r-axSpA had a more limited and slower spinal mobility than those with nr-axSpA. Other patient-reported outcomes almost did not correlate. CONCLUSION: This study shows that the ES is an objective performance measure and a valid tool to assess spinal mobility in axSpA, also based on the Outcomes Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) criteria. RoK and RoM scores provide additional information on physical function of patients with axSpA.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".