ArticleRheumatology advances in practice2025
Machine learning
Article in Rheumatology advances in practice, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 2 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.
Phase 3, Multicenter, Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Study to Evaluate Efficacy and Safety of Certolizumab Pegol in Subjects With Active Axial Spondyloarthritis
A Multicenter, Open-label (Part A) Followed by a Randomized, Double-blind, Parallel-group, Placebo Controlled Study (Part B) to Evaluate Maintenance of Remission in Subjects With Active Axial Spondyloarthritis (axSpA) Receiving Either Certolizumab Pegol 200 mg Q2W or 200 mg Q4W as Compared to Placebo
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Structured prompting as reusable clinical tools.EULAR rheumatology open · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence in rheumatology: days of a future past.Rheumatology advances in practice · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Diagnosis of axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) is primarily established through the identification of the presence or absence of radiographic sacroiliitis. However, the reliability of conventional radiographs (X-rays) is undermined by significant interreader variability. A machine learning tool could reduce diagnosis time, thereby minimising interreader variability. The present study aimed to evaluate the performance of a deep learning model for detecting radiographic sacroiliitis in axSpA patients from the RAPID-axSpA (NCT01087762) and C-OPTIMISE (NCT02505542) trials. Methods: Radiographs from the RAPID-axSpA and C-OPTIMISE cohorts were retrospectively used. The deep learning model was previously trained by using a transfer learning approach on non-medical data. The model's agreement with expert readers was tested on baseline X-rays using central reader data. Sensitivity, specificity, Cohen's κ, positive and negative predictive values and the area under the receiver operating characteristics curve were calculated. Results: The model's performance was evaluated in the RAPID-axSpA ( Conclusions: The tested deep learning model exhibited accurate radiographic sacroiliitis detection in axSpA patients from diverse clinical trials. The proposed deep learning model could expedite diagnosis, reduce healthcare resource usage and improve patient care pathways.
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.