SynthesisRMD open2023
Performances of machine learning algorithms in discriminating sacroiliitis features on MRI: a systematic review.
Synthesis in RMD open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Anatomical Features of the Sacroiliac Joint and Machine Learning-Based Classification of Disease Types.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence in Rheumatology: From Algorithms to Clinical Impact in Osteoporosis and Chronic Inflammatory Rheumatic Diseases.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Biomarkers in axial spondyloarthritis diagnosis: from clinical signs to multi-omics integration.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Review
- Review
- Application of Artificial Intelligence in rheumatic disease classification: an example of ankylosing spondylitis severity inspection model.Annals of medicine · 2025Article
- Recent advances and insights into imaging of axial spondyloarthritis.Skeletal radiology · 2025Review
- Machine learning and deep learning for the diagnosis and treatment of ankylosing spondylitis- a scoping review.Journal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma · 2024Article
- Editorial: Artificial intelligence in rheumatology and musculoskeletal diseases.Frontiers in medicine · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesSummarise the evidence of the performance of the machine learning algorithm in discriminating sacroiliitis features on MRI and compare it with the accuracy of human physicians.
methodsMEDLINE, EMBASE, CIHNAL, Web of Science, IEEE, American College of Rheumatology and European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology abstract archives were searched for studies published between 2008 and 4 June 2023. Two authors independently screened and extracted the variables, and the results are presented using tables and forest plots.
resultsTen studies were selected from 2381. Over half of the studies used deep learning models, using Assessment of Spondyloarthritis International Society sacroiliitis criteria as the ground truth, and manually extracted the regions of interest. All studies reported the area under the curve as a performance index, ranging from 0.76 to 0.99. Sensitivity and specificity were the second-most commonly reported indices, with sensitivity ranging from 0.56 to 1.00 and specificity ranging from 0.67 to 1.00; these results are comparable to a radiologist's sensitivity of 0.67-1.00 and specificity of 0.78-1.00 in the same cohort. More than half of the studies showed a high risk of bias in the analysis domain of quality appraisal owing to the small sample size or overfitting issues.
conclusionThe performance of machine learning algorithms in discriminating sacroiliitis features on MRI varied owing to the high heterogeneity between studies and the small sample sizes, overfitting, and under-reporting issues of individual studies. Further well-designed and transparent studies are required.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.