Anatomy-centred deep learning improves generalisability and progression prediction in radiographic sacroiliitis detection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To examine whether incorporating anatomy-centred deep learning can improve generalisability and enable prediction of disease progression. METHODS: This retrospective multicentre study included conventional pelvic radiographs of four different patient cohorts focusing on axial spondyloarthritis collected at university and community hospitals. The first cohort, which consisted of 1483 radiographs, was split into training (n=1261) and validation (n=222) sets. The other cohorts comprising 436, 340 and 163 patients, respectively, were used as independent test datasets. For the second cohort, follow-up data of 311 patients was used to examine progression prediction capabilities. Two neural networks were trained, one on images cropped to the bounding box of the sacroiliac joints (anatomy-centred) and the other one on full radiographs. The performance of the models was compared using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), accuracy, sensitivity and specificity. RESULTS: On the three test datasets, the standard model achieved AUC scores of 0.853, 0.817, 0.947, with an accuracy of 0.770, 0.724, 0.850. Whereas the anatomy-centred model achieved AUC scores of 0.899, 0.846, 0.957, with an accuracy of 0.821, 0.744, 0.906, respectively. The patients who were identified as high risk by the anatomy-centred model had an OR of 2.16 (95% CI 1.19, 3.86) for having progression of radiographic sacroiliitis within 2 years. CONCLUSION: Anatomy-centred deep learning can improve the generalisability of models in detecting radiographic sacroiliitis. The model is published as fully open source alongside this study.
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".