ライフサイエンスコーパス: joint space

1 ny outgrowths or osteophyte formation within joint space.

2 oglobulin (beta2m) as amyloid plaques in the joint space.

3 obulin (beta2m) as amyloid fibers within the joint space.

4 r transformation directly from work space to joint space.

5 n and white blood cell infiltration into the joint space.

6 absence of infection of the epiphysis or the joint space.

7 cartilaginous metaplasia was observed in the joint space.

8 ction introduce the needle directly into the joint space.

9 e accumulation of fibrotic tissue within the joint space.

10 est detectable difference across the lateral joint space.

11 for segmental stretch reflexes to operate in joint space.

12 ffectively embeds their representations in a joint space.

13 mputations due to sarcomas not involving the joint space.

14 ontributed substantially to narrowing of the joint space.

15 ture articular surface but not in the future joint space.

16 of calcium pyrophosphate dihydrate in their joint spaces.

17 se in AP laxity had a greater loss of medial joint space (0.22 mm greater, after adjusting for age, s

18 d 15 by > or =2-mm reduction in tibiofemoral joint space), 13 lost cartilage during the first 2 years

19 . 1.83 +/- 0.64 mm, p < 0.001) and posterior joint spaces (2.48 +/- 0.73 vs. 2.19 +/- 0.69 mm, p = 0.

20 PB-145 or saline was injected into the joint space 3 times per week for 3 weeks.

21 Consequently, we injected into the articular joint space a defective feline immunodeficiency virus ca

22 , tibiofemoral arthrokinematics, subchondral joint space and center of closest contact location betwe

23 The metabolic state of pathogens in the joint space and mechanism of their tolerance to antibiot

24 tics equation, achieving the mapping between joint space and pose space.

25 f drugs suffer from rapid clearance from the joint space and slow diffusive transport through the den

26 neutrophil and monocyte infiltration of the joint space and surrounding musculoskeletal tissue.

27 nitions of progression were based on minimum joint space and total osteophyte score.

28 based methods for measuring finger and wrist joint spaces and estimating erosion volume in patients w

29 le, fat, ligaments and/or tendons, cartilage joint space, and bone.

30 e cartilage matrix, prolong retention in the joint space, and mitigate OA progression.

31 his molecular reversal eliminates phalangeal joint spaces, and consequently, Short digits (Dsh) heter

32 es, particularly in large bones close to the joint spaces, and in synovial membranes and carpal tunne

33 ion, scanning direction, spatial resolution, joint spacing, and tube current, with known measurements

34 acture (e.g., fibrotic adhesions and reduced joint space) are absent in the animals treated with mult

35 t minimal joint space width (JSW) and medial joint space area (JSA), and by medial tibial and femoral

36 The inclusion of a joint space asymmetry measure was associated with knee O

37 al and medial knee JSW was used to determine joint space asymmetry.

38 ntimal cells in the synovium surrounding the joint space became hyperplastic, which further contribut

39 For change in medial joint space, both change in meniscal position and change

40 ownregulated in regions that will become the joint space, but in Dsh/+ mice, Shh bypasses this regula

41 OA, defined as narrowing of the tibiofemoral joint space by 1 grade (semiquantitative scale 0-3) on r

42 t space loss was defined as narrowing of the joint space by 1 grade.

43 appear to be prevented from mineralizing the joint space by IHH-driven surface chondrocyte proliferat

44 the residence time of the polypeptide in the joint space by reducing its clearance.

45 To test whether factor IX within the joint space can protect joints from hemophilic synovitis

46 A patients, varus-valgus laxity increased as joint space decreased (slope -0.34; 95% CI -0.48, -0.19;

47 anatomical variation, joint level coverage, joint space distance, and congruency at the talocrural j

48 the physiological state of pathogens in the joint space for development of improved treatment strate

49 an 0.1 mm in the central medial tibiofemoral joint space for individuals without radiographically dem

50 moment, after excluding knees with the worst joint space grade at baseline (which could not progress)

51 h progression defined as worsening of medial joint space grade); self-reported and performance-based

52 These sex differences in joint space have significant implications in terms of th

53 s were performed separately for meniscus and joint space including synovia, ligaments, and periarticu

54 either injected through the needle into the joint space (intraarticularly) or immediately delivered

55 formation is initiated and maintained in the joint space is important for elucidating WT-hbeta(2)m ag

56 s correlated with greater subsequent lateral joint space loss (R = 0.35; 95% CI, 0.21-0.47 in dominan

57 Joint space loss and its standardized response mean incr

58 ow lesions (BMLs) are powerful predictors of joint space loss as visualized on radiographs, the natur

59 Although it is not clear whether joint space loss at the hip is a feature of normal aging

60 ression was measured as the amount of medial joint space loss between baseline and followup, using li

61 rity of varus correlated with greater medial joint space loss during the subsequent 18 months (R = 0.

62 The mean +/- SD joint space loss for all knees over 3 years was 0.24 +/-

63 ew provides a sensitive and valid measure of joint space loss in multiyear longitudinal studies of kn

64 , we defined radiographic worsening based on joint space loss in the tibiofemoral joint on either AP/

65 lly guided radiography of the knee to assess joint space loss is an important issue in studies of pro

66 c knee osteoarthritis and the progression of joint space loss is in part a biomechanical process.

67 ing a dichotomous definition of progression (joint space loss of >or=0.6 mm).

68 n knees with OA at baseline, the mean +/- SD joint space loss over 3 years was 0.43 +/- 0.66 mm (P <

69 -flexion radiography protocol to detect knee joint space loss over 3 years.

70 in which AP laxity decreased had less medial joint space loss than did knees without a decrease in AP

71 23-47 months) apart, and the relationship of joint space loss to radiographic and magnetic resonance

72 idth (JSW), the sensitivity for detection of joint space loss using serial films obtained a median of

73 nees with joint space narrowing at baseline, joint space loss was 0.50 +/- 0.67 mm (P < 0.001).

74 Joint space loss was also unaffected by activity.

75 re scored on a 0-3 scale, and progression of joint space loss was defined as narrowing of the joint s

76 Compared with knees without joint space loss, knees with medial compartment loss on

77 In the assessment of TF joint space loss, lateral view radiographs are reliable,

78 steopenia, soft-tissue swelling, and uniform joint space loss.

79 graphic OA, symptomatic OA, and tibiofemoral joint space loss.

80 All definitions except minimum joint space < or =2.5 mm displayed consistent predictive

81 Joint space mapping (JSM) can be used to quantitatively

82 ew quantitative 3D analysis technique called joint space mapping (JSM).

83 Conclusion Joint space mapping of the knee using weight-bearing CT

84 Joint space measurements and scoring of joint space narr

85 muscle metabolic rate equations, whereas the joint-space method used metabolic rate equations based o

86 time profiles using a musculoskeletal and a joint-space method.

87 s of RHOA: summary OA grade > or =2, minimum joint space (MJS) < or =1.5 mm, definite femoral or acet

88 w GL emphasis; and higher values of superior joint space, mouth opening, saliva Vascular-endothelium-

89 r; however, error increased substantially at joint spaces narrower than 0.5 mm.

90 ) (beta=-0.22), and the diseased compartment joint space narrowing (dcJSN) score (beta=0.53) were eac

91 tients was defined by the presence of severe joint space narrowing (JSN) (feature grade>or=3), a summ

92 lgren-Lawrence grade >=2) and progression of joint space narrowing (JSN) according to the nodal OA st

93 nt reduction in the score for progression of joint space narrowing (JSN) and the total score (a combi

94 eoarthritis features such as osteophytes and joint space narrowing (JSN) from low-resolution images (

95 ared with ROM, ST decreased the mean rate of joint space narrowing (JSN) in osteoarthritic knees by 2

96 lyze the mechanism underlying the slowing of joint space narrowing (JSN) in patients with knee osteoa

97 The primary outcome measure was joint space narrowing (JSN) in the medial tibiofemoral c

98 ve yielded variable estimates of the rate of joint space narrowing (JSN) in the standing anteroposter

99 The dependent variable was joint space narrowing (JSN) on the plain radiograph (pos

100 OA progression was defined as a change in joint space narrowing (JSN) or osteophyte formation of 1

101 day, the sensitivity of these techniques to joint space narrowing (JSN) over time in subjects with k

102 valence ratios (PRs) of OA, osteophytes, and joint space narrowing (JSN) per quartile of plasma phyll

103 pose To investigate the risk of radiographic joint space narrowing (JSN) progression evaluated in sub

104 adiographic damage score, erosion score, and joint space narrowing (JSN) score for 751 serial films o

105 1 of the following criteria in either hip: a joint space narrowing (JSN) score of >/=3, a Croft summa

106 scores (median 0.84 versus 0.48 units/year), joint space narrowing (JSN) scores (0.42 versus 0.04), a

107 ords greater sensitivity in the detection of joint space narrowing (JSN) than that achieved by conven

108 Osteophytes (OPH) and joint space narrowing (JSN) were also examined separatel

109 The rates of erosion progression and joint space narrowing (JSN) were analyzed using multivar

110 ne reader for Kellgren/Lawrence (K/L) grade, joint space narrowing (JSN), and osteophytes.

111 eproducibility of scoring of erosions (ERO), joint space narrowing (JSN), and their combination (ERO

112 etabular osteophytes, definite superolateral joint space narrowing (JSN), or moderate or worse supero

113 hips free of these findings at baseline: 1) joint space narrowing (JSN), which consisted of either a

114 luated for global OA grade, osteophytes, and joint space narrowing (JSN).

115 n the presence or absence of osteophytes and joint space narrowing (JSN).

116 formation and for 446 knees without baseline joint space narrowing (JSN).

117 ad for Kellgren and Lawrence (K/L) grade and joint space narrowing (JSN; 0-3 scale) in each compartme

118 al progression was defined as an increase in joint space narrowing (on a semiquantitative scale) in k

119 The next strongest predictor was anterior joint space narrowing (OR = 7.225, 95% CI 2.550-20.470,

120 wup, total Sharp scores (TSS), RA-associated joint space narrowing (RA-JSN), and erosions were determ

121 the knee (with weight-bearing) were read for joint space narrowing (scale 0-3), with progression defi

122 ly quantify overall damage (subchallenge 1), joint space narrowing (subchallenge 2), and erosions (su

123 s were defined as composite (osteophytes and joint space narrowing [JSN]), atrophic (JSN without oste

124 A susceptibility traits (presence/absence of joint space narrowing [JSN], presence/absence of osteoph

125 ophytes and those using definitions based on joint space narrowing alone.

126 e 0-43), and their average Sharp's score for joint space narrowing and erosions combined was 106 (ran

127 r unbiased assessment quantifying accrual of joint space narrowing and erosions on radiographic image

128 Radiographic scores for joint space narrowing and osteophyte formation in the kn

129 Significant inhibition of joint space narrowing and osteophyte formation was achie

130 extrusion, and of radiographic assessment of joint space narrowing and osteophytes, using MRI as a re

131 efinition of OA included radiologic changes (joint space narrowing and osteophytosis) in the hip join

132 mean increased with the severity of baseline joint space narrowing and with the presence of cartilage

133 isits in 58 future radiographic progressors (joint space narrowing at 24 months, sustained at 48 mont

134 3 +/- 0.66 mm (P < 0.001), and in knees with joint space narrowing at baseline, joint space loss was

135 Joint space measurements and scoring of joint space narrowing both demonstrated a difference bet

136 ociated with both radiographic features (any joint space narrowing grade >/= 1) (odds ratio 3.20 [95%

137 Compartments of the knee joint without joint space narrowing had a higher dGEMRIC index than th

138 plications in terms of the major emphasis on joint space narrowing in definitions of hip OA.

139 suprapatellar fullness in 78% of the knees, joint space narrowing in one knee, and no bone abnormali

140 pain and compartment-specific progression of joint space narrowing in patients with knee osteoarthrit

141 attern of, and risk factors for, progressive joint space narrowing in the contralateral hip after THA

142 The rate of progressive joint space narrowing in the contralateral hip after tot

143 risk factors for accelerated progression of joint space narrowing included age, sex, side of surgery

144 al evidence that radiographic progression of joint space narrowing is predictive of cartilage loss as

145 ributable to genetic factors was evident for joint space narrowing of <2.5 mm.

146 were at least 50 years of age and had medial joint space narrowing on posteroanterior semiflexed radi

147 ined the relationship between progression of joint space narrowing on radiographic images and cartila

148 ne and 18 months in the grade of severity of joint space narrowing on radiographs of semiflexed knees

149 3), progression was defined as tibiofemoral joint space narrowing on the 30-month radiograph.

150 was no evidence of an effect of denosumab on joint space narrowing or on measures of RA disease activ

151 t 1 month) and who had no evidence of either joint space narrowing or osteophyte (grade 0, no structu

152 e loss or osteophyte growth if their maximal joint space narrowing or osteophyte growth score increas

153 Classifying disease by the presence of joint space narrowing or osteophytes alone produced simi

154 Our finding of different joint space narrowing prevalence by the 2 IRF grading sc

155 ced risk of radiographic knee osteoarthritis joint space narrowing progression in patients with nodal

156 h may predispose patients to more aggressive joint space narrowing remain undefined.

157 or =2 at the tibiofemoral joint and a medial joint space narrowing score of > or =1, and lateral dise

158 P = 0.05), tender joint count (P = 0.02) and joint space narrowing scores (P = 0.05) among patients w

159 ip OA defined as the development of definite joint space narrowing was increased for subjects who wer

160 nt when grade >/=1 osteophytes or grade >/=1 joint space narrowing was observed on skyline views of t

161 tes (in particular, femoral osteophytes) and joint space narrowing would be recommended for most epid

162 either by the presence of osteophytes or by joint space narrowing) and those with osteoporosis or be

163 iographic features (osteophyte formation and joint space narrowing) supported differences in risk fac

164 re and for individual features (osteophytes, joint space narrowing, and subchondral bone sclerosis) i

165 increase over follow-up in medial or lateral joint space narrowing, based on a semi-quantitative grad

166 In the presence of joint space narrowing, it is important to differentiate

167 e of < or = 1.5 mm, definite osteophytes and joint space narrowing, or > or = 3 radiographic features

168 s of the hind limbs were visually scored for joint space narrowing, osteophyte formation, and calcifi

169 The sensitivity of marginal osteophytes, joint space narrowing, subchondral sclerosis, and subcho

170 The specificity of marginal osteophytes, joint space narrowing, subchondral sclerosis, and subcho

171 ermine the presence of marginal osteophytes, joint space narrowing, subchondral sclerosis, and subcho

172 Joint space narrowing, subchondral sclerosis, and subcho

173 diographic features, such as osteophytes and joint space narrowing, were scored from 0 to 3.

174 defined as worsening of the grade of medial joint space narrowing.

175 he Kellgren/Lawrence score, osteophytes, and joint space narrowing.

176 ely influence osteophyte formation more than joint space narrowing.

177 ritability of 58% for OA overall and 64% for joint space narrowing.

178 d treatment and were scored for erosions and joint space narrowing.

179 ults of radiographic scoring of erosions and joint space narrowing.

180 nges of radiographic hip OA characterized by joint space narrowing.

181 e found for the prevalence of grade > or = 2 joint space narrowing.

182 l analog scale (range, 0-100) and tibiotalar joint space narrowing.

183 ion and the disease activity score and X-ray joint space narrowing.

184 indicators include marginal osteophytes and joint space narrowing.

185 symptoms, comorbidity, body mass index, and joint space narrowing.

186 definitions based on stringent criteria for joint space narrowing.

187 ompartments and were scored for tibiofemoral joint space narrowing.

188 tes (FOs), acetabular osteophytes (AOs), and joint-space narrowing (JSN) were graded as absent, mild,

189 4), and for the presence of osteophytes and joint-space narrowing (range, 0 to 3).

190 Bone erosion and joint-space narrowing were measured radiographically and

191 ed loss of cartilage, as assessed by loss of joint space (odds ratio, 2.3 [Cl, 0.9 to 5.5]) and osteo

192 following 3 findings in either hip: minimum joint space of < or = 1.5 mm, definite osteophytes and j

193 loys Markov chain Monte Carlo to explore the joint space of alignment and phylogeny given molecular s

194 jection, are successfully delivered into the joint space of rats.

195 thyleneimine, was injected into the superior joint space of the TMJ in rats.

196 g the 'structural alignment' space, i.e. the joint space of their alignments and common secondary str

197 vitamin D status is unrelated to the risk of joint space or cartilage loss in knee OA.

198 a bolus administration into the glenohumeral joint space reveals the brief systemic and intraarticula

199 expanded chondrification in the presumptive joint space, suggesting a crucial role for FGF signaling

200 ro, the localization of beta(2)m deposits to joint spaces suggests a role for the local extracellular

201 femoral shaft), and cone-beam artifacts (at joint space surfaces oriented along the scanning plane--

202 clinations, and both the musculoskeletal and joint-space time profile estimations did not correlate s

203 Test-retest reliability of the TF joint space using the lateral view had a root mean squar

204 ere examined, only leukocyte influx into the joint space was inhibited, and this effect declined with

205 tures (IRFs) of OA were assessed and minimal joint space was measured on paired films.

206 showed that the central-to-posterior medial joint space was significantly narrower by 0.5 mm for eac

207 > or =2 mm of narrowing of the tibiofemoral joint space were analyzed by logistic regression models.

208 nterior band of the UCL and the width of the joint space were compared for pitching and nonpitching a

209 2D FDA-approved gold standard of minimum 2D joint space width (AUC 0.73).

210 verity (beta=0.78), the diseased compartment joint space width (dcJSW) (beta=-0.22), and the diseased

211 s in radiographic medial compartment minimal joint space width (JSW) and medial joint space area (JSA

212 celecoxib and placebo on progressive loss of joint space width (JSW) in patients with knee OA.

213 ic alignment of the joint and measurement of joint space width (JSW) in repeat radiographs acquired o

214 e pain of varying magnitudes on radiographic joint space width (JSW) in the weight-bearing extended a

215 ping (JSM) can be used to quantitatively map joint space width (JSW) in three dimensions from CT imag

216 The radiographic joint space width (JSW) of each contralateral hip joint

217 Computerized measurement of changes in joint space width (JSW) on serial radiographs of the kne

218 Minimum joint space width (JSW) was measured at the hip and knee

219 Minimum joint space width (JSW) was measured by metered caliper

220 ith medial compartment knee OA and 2-4 mm of joint space width (JSW), as determined using fluoroscopi

221 /Lawrence (K/L) score, from 5.9% to 9.2% for joint space width (JSW), from 6.6% to 10.8% for sclerosi

222 test-retest precision for measuring minimum joint space width (JSW), the sensitivity for detection o

223 ren-Lawrence (KL) grade increase and loss in joint space width (JSW).

224 e measured, HA levels correlated with medial joint space width (r = -0.55), but not with the adductio

225 ng computer programs to measure radiographic joint space width and estimate erosion volume in the han

226 ignificantly decrease the rate of decline in joint space width as well as improve pain scores compare

227 hy, including advances in the technology for joint space width assessment, will be discussed.

228 nee pain), general bone mineral content, and joint space width at baseline were no more effective tha

229 The joint space width at rest was 2.8 mm +/- 1.0 in the pitc

230 Serum HA levels correlate with joint space width but not with the adduction moment.

231 ed as either a reduction in the tibiofemoral joint space width by at least 2 mm or total knee replace

232 a relationship between the three-dimensional joint space width distribution and structural joint dise

233 ized, magnification-corrected measurement of joint space width greatly improves the feasibility of di

234 To measure the joint space width in the finger and wrist joints of RA p

235 months of treatment, the mean +/- SD loss of joint space width in the index knee in the doxycycline g

236 = 0.68 and r = 0.60, respectively), and with joint space width in the left and right knees (r = -0.45

237 Standardized techniques for measuring joint space width in the medial tibiofemoral compartment

238 The computer-based method for measuring joint space width is more discriminant than the semiquan

239 was evaluated using repeat radiographs, with joint space width measured using electronic calipers.

240 is study was to determine whether changes in joint space width occur with age, and whether there are

241 In 3 sets of duplicate measurements of joint space width on 79, 48, and 48 finger and wrist joi

242 was assessed by measurement of the narrowest joint space width on radiographs of knees in a fluorosco

243 Decreasing the simulated joint space width to 0.5 mm caused slight increases in e

244 The minimum medial joint space width was also measured manually (standard e

245 Hand joint space width was measured using an automated, compu

246 When stress was applied, however, the joint space width was significantly greater in the pitch

247 Finally, changes in joint space width were not different between the groups.

248 d to computerize measurement of tibiofemoral joint space width will introduce significant (and probab

249 k cohort, examining relationships between 3D joint space width, 3D joint shape, and future joint repl

250 croiliitis, such as sclerosis, change in the joint space width, erosions and ankylosis.

251 o choosing the contrast agent concentration, joint space width, scanning direction, and spatial resol

252 of quantitative measurements of tibiofemoral joint space width, the surrogate for thickness of articu

253 b time, WOMAC pain and stiffness scores, and joint space width.

254 tion moment, there was a 0.63-mm decrease in joint space width.

255 the Kellgren-Lawrence (K-L) grade and medial joint space width.

256 kness, bone marrow lesions, and radiographic joint space width.

257 we here focused on radiographically measured joint-space width (JSW), a proxy for cartilage thickness

258 rying simulated cartilage thicknesses and 10 joint space widths were assessed.

259 so have a significant progressive decline in joint space with age that is not seen in men.

260 periarticular soft tissues, bone structures, joint space, with special attention to articular bone su