Structural and clinical disease severity in thumb osteoarthritis: A pilot study integrating imaging analysis and pain mechanisms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We sought to explore pain mechanisms in thumb carpometacarpal osteoarthritis using imaging-based biomarkers and clinical pain evaluation techniques, and to identify potential pain phenotypes among patients with thumb carpometacarpal osteoarthritis that may be useful for designing more targeted research and intervention strategies. STUDY DESIGN: Pilot case-control study. METHODS: Participants (n=9 healthy; n=9 thumb osteoarthritis) underwent static CT scans of the hand and wrist, accompanied by a calibration phantom with known densities. Participants completed patient-reported outcome measures targeting different pain mechanisms. Average subchondral volumetric bone mineral density was analyzed in the first metacarpal and third metacarpal at three depths (0-2.5, 2.5-5.0, and 5.0-7.5 mm), while the trapezium was studied at five depths (0-1.25, 1.25-2.5, 2.5-3.75, 3.75-5.0, and 5.0-6.25 mm). Joint contact area of first metacarpal and trapezium was averaged for all participants. All patient-reported outcome measures were analyzed separately using conceptualized thresholds to characterize pain mechanisms. RESULTS: Post hoc power was low (26%). The thumb osteoarthritis cohort showed statistically significant lower bone density than the healthy cohort (p<0.05), save for the trapezium's top layer. Effect sizes ranged from 1.06-1.77, with the largest effect in the trapezium's third layer (d=1.77), favoring the healthy cohort. Nociceptive pain was the dominant pain phenotype, suggesting peripheral pain mechanisms in this sample. CONCLUSIONS: Despite limited generalizability due to small sample size, these preliminary findings suggest biological contributors---such as local bone density loss and nociceptive pain dominance---to clinical disease severity in thumb osteoarthritis.
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 | 0.003 | 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".