Analysis of Hand Joint Space Morphology in Women and Men with Hereditary Hemochromatosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hereditary hemochromatosis (HH) causes unbalanced iron deposition in many organs including the joints leading to severe cartilage loss and bone damage in the metacarpophalangeal joints (MCPJ). High-resolution peripheral quantitative computed tomography (HR-pQCT) and its joint space width (JSW) quantification algorithm quantifies in vivo 3D joint morphology. We therefore aimed to (i) determine feasibility and performance of the JSW algorithm in HH, (ii) quantify joint space morphology, and (iii) investigate the relationship between morphological and clinical parameters in HH. Here, we performed an exploratory study on 24 HH patients and sex- and age-matched controls using HR-pQCT imaging of MCPJ. Mineralized bone structure was automatically segmented from the grayscale image data and periosteal surface bone masks and joint space masks were generated. Mean, minimal, and maximal joint space width (JSW; JSW.MIN; JSW.MAX), JSW heterogeneity (JSW.SD), JSW asymmetry (JSW.AS), and joint space volume (JSV) were computed. Demographics and, for HH patients, disease-specific parameters were recorded. Segmentation of JS was very good with 79.7% of MCPJs successfully segmented at first attempt and 20.3% requiring semi-manual correction. HH men showed larger JSV at all MCPs (+ 25.4% < JSV < + 41.8%, p < 0.05), larger JSW.MAX at MCP 3-4 (+ 14%, 0.006 < p < 0.062), and wider JSW (+ 13%, p = 0.043) at MCP 4 relative to HH women. Compared to controls, both HH men and HH women showed larger JSW.AS and smaller JSW.MIN at all MCP levels, reaching significance for HH men at MCP 2 and 3 (JSW.AS: + 323% < JSW.AS < + 359%, 0.020 < p < 0.043; JSW.MIN: - 216% < JSW.MIN < - 225%, p < 0.043), and for women at MCP 3 (JSW.AS: + 180%, p = 0.025; JSW.MIN: - 41.8%, p = 0.022). Time since HH diagnosis was correlated positively with MCP 4 JSW.AS and JSW.SD (0.463 < ρ < 0.499, p < 0.040), and the number of phlebotomies since diagnosis was correlated with JSW.SD at all MCPs (0.432 < ρ < 0.535, p < 0.050). HR-pQCT-based JSW quantification in MCPJ of HH patients is feasible, performs well even in narrow JS, and allows to define the microstructural joint burden of HH.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".