MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4281696726 · doi:10.3390/diagnostics12061420

Evaluating the Impact of High Intensity Interval Training on Axial Psoriatic Arthritis Based on MR Images

2022· article· en· W4281696726 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ioanna Chronaiou, Guro F. Giskeødegård, Aleš Neubert, Tamara Viola Hoffmann-Skjøstad, Ruth Stoklund Thomsen, Mari Hoff, Tone F. Bathen, Beathe Sitter

Bibliographic record

VenueDiagnostics · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpondyloarthritis Studies and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePsoriatic arthritisMagnetic resonance imagingNuclear medicineRadiologyArthritisInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

High intensity interval training (HIIT) has been shown to benefit patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA). However, magnetic resonance (MR) imaging has uncovered bone marrow edema (BME) in healthy volunteers after vigorous exercise. The purpose of this study was to investigate MR images of the spine of PsA patients for changes in BME after HIIT. PsA patients went through 11 weeks of HIIT (N = 19, 4 men, median age 52 years) or no change in physical exercise habits (N = 20, 8 men, median age 45 years). We acquired scores for joint affection and pain and short tau inversion recovery (STIR) and T1-weighted MR images of the spine at baseline and after 11 weeks. MR images were evaluated for BME by a trained radiologist, by SpondyloArthritis Research Consortium of Canada (SPARCC) scoring, and by extraction of textural features. No significant changes of BME were detected in MR images of the spine after HIIT. This was consistent for MR image evaluation by a radiologist, by SPARCC, and by texture analysis. Values of textural features were significantly different in BME compared to healthy bone marrow. In conclusion, BME in spine was not changed after HIIT, supporting that HIIT is safe for PsA patients.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.785
Threshold uncertainty score0.495

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.057
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.297 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDiagnosticsSame topicSpondyloarthritis Studies and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207