ArticleRMD open2026
Deep learning algorithm for semiquantification of spinal inflammation in axial spondyloarthritis.
Article in RMD open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo develop a deep learning algorithm for semiquantification of spinal inflammation in patients with axial spondyloarthritis (SpA).
methodsThe study included 330 participants with axial SpA. All patients underwent whole spine MRI with short τ inversion recovery (STIR) sequence by 3T MR unit. Three independent readers identified regions of interest to locate bone marrow oedema (BMO) and performed Spondyloarthritis Research Consortium of Canada (SPARCC) scoring. Two deep learning models based on attention Unet were developed. The BMO model differentiated image with or without spinal inflammation. The vertebral body (VB)-intervertebral disc (IVD) model identified discovertebral units for localisation. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and Pearson coefficient were used to evaluate agreement and correlation between scorings by human readers and deep learning-based pipeline. Performance of the models was evaluated using sensitivity, specificity, accuracy and Dice coefficient.
resultsThe ICC and the Pearson coefficient of SPARCC scores between human readers and the deep learning-based scoring pipeline were 0.80 and 0.82, respectively. The sensitivity and specificity of spinal inflammation identification were 0.90 and 0.84, respectively. The Dice coefficients were 0.81 (VB) and 0.80 (IVD) in images with spinal inflammation.
conclusionThe high consistency of the scoring pipeline with human readers suggested that the deep learning-based algorithm has the potential to provide semiquantitative assessment of spinal inflammation based on SPARCC in axial SpA.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.