Disease-specific definitions of new bone formation on spine radiographs: a systematic literature review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: We aimed to explore the radiographic definitions of types of New Bone formation (NBF) by focusing on the terminology, description and location of the findings. Methods: Three systematic literature reviews were conducted in parallel to identify the radiographic spinal NBF definitions for spondyloarthritis (SpA), Diffuse Idiopathic Skeletal Hyperostosis (DISH) and Osteorathritis (OA). Study characteristics and definitions were extracted independently by two reviewers. Definitions were analysed and collated based on whether they were unique, modified or established from previous research. Results: We identified 33 studies that indicated a definition for the NBF in SpA, 10 for DISH and 7 for spinal OA. In SpA, the variations in syndesmophytes included the description as well as the subtypes and locations. The differentiation of syndesmophytes from osteophytes were included in 12 articles, based on the origin and the angle of the NBF and associated findings. The definitions of DISH varied in the number of vertebrae, level and laterality. For OA, five articles indicated that osteophytes arose from the anterior or lateral aspects of the vertebral bodies, and two studies required a size cut-off. Discussion: Our ultimate aim is to create formal NBF definitions for SpA, DISH and OA guided by an atlas, through a Delphi exercise with international experts. The improved ability to differentiate these conditions radiographically will not only allow the clinicians to accurately approach patients but also will help the researchers to better classify patient phenotypes and focus on accurate radiographic outcomes.
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 | 0.021 | 0.101 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.026 | 0.021 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".