Ultrasonographic Evaluation of Nail Involvement in Patients With Axial Spondyloarthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives This study aimed to evaluate the nail units of patients with axial spondyloarthritis (ax‐SpA) using ultrasound and to identify any subclinical changes. We also aimed to examine the relationship between clinical enthesitis scores and nail involvement in patients with ax‐SpA. Methods The study included 40 patients with ax‐Spa, 40 patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA), and 40 healthy controls. The thickness of the nail plates, morphological changes, the thickness of the proximal nail units, the thickness of the nail beds, and power Doppler signal intensities were evaluated and compared. Maastricht Ankylosing Spondylitis Enthesitis Score and Spondyloarthritis Research Consortium of Canada Enthesitis Index were also evaluated in patients with ax‐SpA. Results There was no significant difference between the thickness of the nail plates of the three groups (P > .05). The first nail bed thickness of ax‐SpA cases was significantly higher than the control group (P = .046), and the fourth and fifth nail proximal unit thicknesses of the control group were significantly lower than the ax‐SpA and PsA groups (P = .023, P = .017). We also found that the Wortsman scores of the cases with PsA were significantly higher than the ax‐SpA and control groups (P = .0001). Conclusion The thickness of the proximal nail unit adjacent to the insertion of the digital extensor tendon, which is considered as the enthesis area, is similar to the patients with PsA in patients with ax‐SpA, especially in the fourth and fifth fingers compared to the control group. On the other hand, almost no structural changes in nail plates were observed in patients with ax‐SpA group.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".