ReachRxResearch
Home
Research
Sign Up
Automated detection of active and structural MRI lesions in the sacroiliac joints in axial spondyloarthritis: training and validation across 3 phase III clinical trial datasets
Back to Research Hub
  1. Home
  2. Research Hub
  3. Automated detection of active and struct…

Automated detection of active and structural MRI lesions in the sacroiliac joints in axial spondyloarthritis: training and validation across 3 phase III clinical trial datasets

Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases·September 6Open Access
RheumatologyPractice changingAxial SpondyloarthritisDiagnostic Accuracy / Deep Learning Validation StudyArtificial Intelligence / Deep Learning Imaging AnalysisAdult

Summary

View source

What was studied

A fully automated deep learning (DL) pipeline was developed to detect 5 MRI lesion types in sacroiliac joints (SIJs) in axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) — bone marrow oedema (BMO), erosions, fat lesions, sclerosis, and ankylosis — trained on the MEASURE 1 trial (n=132) and validated on two independent phase III datasets (PREVENT, n=555; SURPASS, n=414) using paired T1-weighted and STIR sequences scored by the Berlin SIJ method.

Key findings

The DL model matched expert interreader agreement across all datasets; ankylosis detection was strongest (MEASURE 1 AUC 0.97, SURPASS AUC 0.99; balanced accuracy 0.95–0.97), while BMO showed high AUCs (0.85–0.93) but lower balanced accuracy (0.72–0.74). Performance generalised to independent datasets without additional retraining.

Study limitations

BMO balanced accuracy was modest (0.72–0.74), suggesting reduced reliability for active lesion detection compared to structural lesions. The model was trained and validated exclusively on phase III clinical trial populations, which may limit generalisability to routine clinical or early axSpA cohorts. Consensus-based labels used for training may not fully reflect real-world single-reader variability.

Clinical implications

This automated DL tool reliably detects structural SIJ lesions in axSpA and generalises across trial datasets without retraining, supporting its use to improve consistency and scalability of MRI scoring in clinical trials. Clinicians should note that active lesion (BMO) detection is less precise and may still require expert review.

Caveats

  • The impact_flag 'practice_changing' is applied cautiously: while results are strong, the tool has not yet been validated in routine clinical practice settings outside of trial populations.
  • The study design is a diagnostic accuracy/validation study across clinical trial datasets — not a traditional RCT — so level of evidence is approximate. Some may classify it differently depending on the evidence hierarchy used.
  • Total sample size of n=1,101 is derived by summing all three trial cohorts (MEASURE 1: 132; PREVENT: 555; SURPASS: 414); the paper does not report a single combined N explicitly.

Related Questions

Explore related topics

How does AI-based MRI scoring compare to human readers in axial spondyloarthritis clinical trials?What are the best MRI scoring methods for sacroiliac joint lesions in spondyloarthritis?Can automated MRI analysis replace expert reading for bone marrow edema detection in axSpA?

Publication Details

Year
2026
Journal
Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases
Sample Size
n=1,101
Source
View article
Keep scrolling
More content below.
Up Next