Comparison of Magnetic Resonance Imaging Scales for Assessment of Interval Changes of Arthropathy in Boys with Severe Hemophilia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background/Objectives: The variety of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scales available to measure soft tissue and osteochondral changes in joints of persons with hemophilia poses challenges in evaluating published clinical/research studies. To evaluate the value of four MRI scales [(i) the 17-point International Prophylaxis Study Group [IPSG] additive scale; (ii) and (iii) the compatible IPSG progressive (P) and additive (A) scales; and (iv) the Denver progressive scale] to assess joint change in boys with hemophilia participating in a prospective two-year prophylaxis study. Methods: Boys with severe hemophilia A (ages, 7–16 years) followed at the Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Canada had MRI evaluations of six index joints (ankles, knees, elbows) at study entry and exit. Musculoskeletal (MSK) outcomes included in the study were the Colorado Child Physical Examination (PE) scale; the Pettersson (X-ray) scale; and the aforementioned 4 MRI scales. Results: Very strong (r ≥ 0.80) correlations were observed between the IPSG 17-point, the IPSG progressive (P) and the Denver MRI scales, and moderate (r = 0.40–0.59) to strong (r = 0.60–0.79) correlations for the IPSG 17 point and the IPSG additive (A) MRI scales. Very weak (r = 0.20–0.39) or no correlations were observed between soft tissue MRI scores and the swelling item of the Child PE scale. Conclusions: All four MRI scales demonstrated relative comparability of their construct validities for assessing mild/moderate hemophilic arthropathy. The 17-point IPSG additive scale is recommended as a reference standard in future long-term studies of young boys with hemophilia receiving factor and non-factor-based preventive therapies.
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 | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".