Intermediate-weighted MRI with fat suppression (IW-FS): diagnostic performance for bone marrow edema and erosion detection in axial spondyloarthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Bone marrow edema (BME) and erosion of the sacroiliac joint are both key lesions for diagnosing axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Purpose To qualitatively and quantitatively compare intermediate-weighted MRI with fat suppression (IW-FS) with T2-weighted short tau inversion recovery (T2-STIR) in assessment of sacroiliac BME and erosion in axSpA. Material and Methods Patients aged 18–60 years with axSpA were prospectively enrolled. All patients underwent a 3.0-T MRI examination of the sacroiliac joints. Para-coronal IW-FS, T2-STIR, and T1-weighted (T1W) images were acquired. BME and erosion were scored by two readers in consensus on IW-FS and STIR using a modified Spondyloarthritis Research Consortium of Canada (SPARCC) scoring system. Consensus scores on T1WI were used as the reference for erosion. Signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) were measured for BME. Results In total, 49 patients (mean age=33.4 ± 7.6 years) were included. More patients were scored as having BME on T2-STIR (36 vs. 29, P = 0.016). SPARCC-BME score on IW-FS was lower than that acquired on T2-STIR (mean, 11.5 vs. 14.7, P = 0.002). SNR and CNR of BME were both lower on IW-FS than on T2-STIR (mean SNR, 118 vs. 218, P < 0.001; mean CNR, 44 vs. 137, P < 0.001). The sensitivity of erosion detection was higher on IW-FS (83%) than on T2-STIR (54%, P = 0.006). Conclusion IW-FS is not sufficient for BME detection using T2-STIR as the reference standard in patients with axSpA. IW-FS has a much higher sensitivity than T2-STIR for erosion detection in the sacroiliac joint.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".