Which inflamed tissues explain a positive metatarsophalangeal squeeze test? A large imaging study to clarify a common diagnostic procedure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The squeeze test of MTP joints is frequently used because it is easy and cheap. It is traditionally perceived as a test for synovitis. Besides classic intra-articular synovitis, also tenosynovitis and intermetatarsal bursitis (IMB) represent synovial inflammation, albeit juxta-articularly located. Both are frequently present in RA and occasionally in other arthritides. Therefore we hypothesized that tenosynovitis and IMB contribute to a positive MTP squeeze test. METHODS: A cross-sectional study design was used. A total of 192 early arthritis patients and 693 clinically suspect arthralgia patients underwent the MTP squeeze test and forefoot MRI at first presentation. MRI measurements in age-matched healthy controls were used to define positivity for synovitis, tenosynovitis and IMB. Logistic regression was used. RESULTS: In early arthritis patients, synovitis [odds ratio (OR) 4.8 (95% CI 2.5, 9.5)], tenosynovitis [2.4 (1.2, 4.7)] and IMB [1.7 (1.2, 2.6)] associated with MTP squeeze test positivity. Synovitis [OR 3.2 (95% CI 1.4, 7.2)] and IMB [3.9 (1.7, 8.8)] remained associated in multivariable analyses. Of patients with a positive MTP squeeze test, 79% had synovitis or IMB: 12% synovitis, 15% IMB and 52% both synovitis and IMB. In clinically suspect arthralgia patients, subclinical synovitis [OR 3.0 (95% CI 2.0, 4.7)], tenosynovitis [2.7 (1.6, 4.6)] and IMB [1.7 (1.2, 2.6)] associated with MTP squeeze test positivity, with the strongest association for synovitis in multivariable analysis. Of positive MTP squeeze tests, 39% had synovitis or IMB (10% synovitis, 15% IMB and 13% both synovitis and IMB). CONCLUSION: Besides synovitis, IMB contributes to pain upon compression in early arthritis, presumably due to its location between MTP joints. This is the first evidence showing that MTP squeeze test positivity is not only explained by intra- but also juxta-articular inflammation.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".