ArticleEULAR rheumatology open2026
Performance of an artificial intelligence model compared with multiple human experts in scoring synovitis and osteophyte severity on joint ultrasound images.
Article in EULAR rheumatology open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Vision transformer-based ordinal model for semi-quantitative synovitis grading on musculoskeletal ultrasound: a retrospective study with internal and external validation.Annals of medicine · 2026Article
- Automated ultrasound with AI for osteophyte grading in hand osteoarthritis: comparison with expert rheumatologist assessment.BMC rheumatology · 2026Article
- Applications of musculoskeletal ultrasound in inflammatory arthritis.Clinical medicine (London, England) · 2025Review
- Article
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
Objectives: Methods: Ultrasound images of the wrist, metacarpophalangeal, proximal interphalangeal, distal interphalangeal, and interphalangeal joints were collected. Five experienced rheumatologists, all ultrasound instructors, scored images for synovial hypertrophy (SH), Doppler activity, and osteophyte severity on a 0 to 3 scale using established scoring systems. The AI model was trained, validated, and tested on 7314 images, then compared against raters on 1280 images for SH, 840 videos for Doppler, and 351 images for osteophytes. Agreement was calculated as the AI's average agreement with all raters. Results: For SH, the AI vs expert raters showed a kappa value of 0.39 (95% CI, 0.35-0.44), a percent exact agreement (PEA) value of 51.77% (95% CI, 48.83-54.70), and a percent close agreement (PCA) value of 91.03% (95% CI, 89.21-92.63). For Doppler activity, the kappa value was 0.61 (95% CI, 0.54-0.67), the PEA value was 80.49% (95% CI, 77.51-83.22), and the PCA value was 97.13% (95% CI, 95.69-98.18). For osteophyte grading, the kappa value was 0.56 (95% CI, 0.48-0.64), the PEA value was 70.69% (95% CI, 65.57-75.45), and the PCA value was 96.28% (95% CI, 93.70-98.01). Interrater reliability among the human experts showed comparable kappa value ranges: 0.36 to 0.47 for SH, 0.69 to 0.74 for Doppler, and 0.42 to 0.64 for osteophytes. Conclusions: The AI model demonstrated agreement with expert raters comparable with interrater agreement for SH and osteophyte grading, whereas it was slightly lower for Doppler activity. The lower-than-expected human interrater reliability, particularly for SH, may reflect the absence of prereading alignment sessions, which provide a more realistic picture of variability in expert scoring. These findings support the potential of AI-assisted ultrasound interpretation, while underscoring the need for continued model refinement.
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.