MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409432023 · doi:10.1016/j.berh.2025.102064

Update of imaging in the assessment of axial spondyloarthritis

2025· review· en· W4409432023 on OpenAlexaff
Natalya Horbal, Krystel Aouad, Xenofon Baraliakos, Nelly Ziadé, Walter P. Maksymowych

Bibliographic record

VenueBest Practice & Research Clinical Rheumatology · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpondyloarthritis Studies and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAxial spondyloarthritisMedical physicsNuclear medicineRadiologyMagnetic resonance imagingSacroiliitis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This update addresses new developments in imaging of axial spondyloarthritis from the past 5 years. These have focused mostly on enhanced CT and MRI-based technologies that bring greater precision to the assessment of both inflammatory and structural lesions in the sacroiliac joint. An international consensus has recommended a 4-sequence MRI for routine diagnostic evaluation of the sacroiliac joint aimed at depicting the location and extent of inflammation as well as an erosion-sensitive sequence for structural damage. The latter include high resolution thin slice sequences that accentuate the interface between subchondral bone and the overlying cartilage and joint space as well as synthetic CT, a deep learning-based technique that transforms certain MRI sequences into images resembling CT. Algorithms based on deep learning derived from plain radiographic, CT, and MRI datasets are increasingly more accurate at identifying sacroiliitis and individual lesions observed on images of the sacroiliac joints and spine.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.173
GPT teacher head0.588
Teacher spread0.415 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBest Practice & Research Clinical RheumatologySame topicSpondyloarthritis Studies and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207