Imaging-First Phenotype Anchoring in Early Seronegative Arthritis - Microerosions, enthesitis-adjacent changes, and progression prevention

Abstract

Background. Early seronegative inflammatory arthritis often presents with limited external phenotype and inconclusive serology. In this setting, radiographs are frequently reported as “no erosions” or “no acute abnormality,” which can delay phenotype anchoring and increase the risk of misaligned therapy during the window of opportunity.

Objective. To review peripheral imaging features — particularly microerosions and enthesitis-adjacent changes — that can provide decision-relevant diagnostic lift in early seronegative disease, and to propose an XR-first escalation framework for targeted use of ultrasound with power Doppler (US-PD) and MRI.

Methods. Narrative review integrating modality-specific strengths and limitations, evidence context, and a pragmatic pattern dictionary for phenotype anchoring.

Key Points. Subtle structural and activity-linked imaging patterns can shift phenotype probability toward RA-like versus PsA/SpA-like pathways or toward mimics (degenerative, crystal-associated, mechanical/overuse). Imaging value depends not only on modality sensitivity but also on report actionability — consistent, descriptor-complete description of distribution, co-features, and uncertainty.

Conclusion. Imaging-first phenotype anchoring is proposed as a pragmatic pathway to improve report actionability, reduce avoidable uncertainty, and support more targeted escalation during early seronegative evaluation, with explicit mimic recognition intended to limit over-treatment.

Key Messages

1. Early seronegative inflammatory arthritis can yield non-actionable first-line imaging reads despite clinically meaningful disease, a gap that may contribute to diagnostic inertia during the window of opportunity.

   
   

2. Microerosions and enthesitis-adjacent changes are most useful when interpreted as pattern elements (topography + distribution + co-features + activity context), not as isolated findings.

   
   

3. An XR-first, question-driven escalation strategy — to US-PD and selectively to MRI — can operationalize phenotype anchoring while explicitly managing mimics and avoiding over-treatment.

   
   

4. In several practical scenarios, correctly acquired radiographs provide particular value for standardized structural baseline assessment, mineralized change, alignment/biomechanics, whole-region distribution mapping, and longitudinal comparability; US-PD and MRI remain more sensitive for selected active inflammatory and occult marrow-level abnormalities. 

   
   

5. Diagnostic lift depends not only on the modality but on whether the report enforces descriptor completeness, distribution mapping, and explicit mimic checkpoints.

   
   

Keywords and Abbreviations

Keywords. seronegative inflammatory arthritis; early arthritis; microerosions; enthesitis; ultrasound; power Doppler; MRI; bone marrow edema; structured reporting; phenotype anchoring; DMARD stratification; progression prevention.

Abbreviations. BME, bone marrow edema; CPPD, calcium pyrophosphate deposition disease; DECT, dual-energy computed tomography; DMARD, disease-modifying antirheumatic drug; HR-pQCT, high-resolution peripheral quantitative CT; MRI, magnetic resonance imaging; MSU, monosodium urate; OA, osteoarthritis; PD, power Doppler; PsA, psoriatic arthritis; RA, rheumatoid arthritis; SpA, spondyloarthritis; US, ultrasound; XR, plain radiography.

1. Introduction

1.1 The early seronegative diagnostic gap

Early inflammatory arthritis does not uniformly present with a clear external phenotype. In seronegative patients — those lacking RF and anti-CCP positivity — clinical features may be intermittent or low-amplitude, and the initial differential frequently includes mechanical, crystal-associated, and degenerative pathways. The result is a predictable uncertainty gap: true inflammatory disease may be undertreated (diagnostic inertia), while benign mimics may be overtreated when ambiguous imaging findings are overinterpreted. Both failure modes carry cost during the period when disease modification is most impactful.

In this context, imaging is often treated as a confirmatory step, yet in practice it can either accelerate clarity or inadvertently reinforce uncertainty. A radiograph read as “no erosions” may be technically correct but clinically non-actionable, because the decision question in early seronegative disease is rarely binary. The clinically decisive questions are typically:

• Is the dominant driver at the symptomatic sites inflammatory or non-inflammatory (and where is it — joint, tendon sheath, enthesis)?

  
  

• Does the distribution and morphology support an RA-like phenotype, a PsA/SpA-like phenotype, or a mimic pathway?

  
  

• Is there imaging context suggesting higher structural risk, and what is the next best test to reduce uncertainty?

  
  

1.2 Why first-line imaging often fails

First-line imaging fails early seronegative patients less because information is absent and more because it is inconsistently sought and described. Routine narrative reports may omit distribution statements, joint-by-joint mapping, tendon sheath and enthesis assessment, and explicit mimic analysis. When subtle cortical abnormalities are present, they may be either undercalled (“normal”) or overcalled (“early erosions”) without the pattern context needed for safe interpretation.

This review frames the gap as an actionability problem: the clinician needs a structured description that enables probability updates and targeted escalation, not a generic normal/abnormal label.

1.3 Imaging-first phenotype anchoring: definition and intent

We use the term imaging-first phenotype anchoring to describe a probability-shifting workflow in which imaging patterns are used to strengthen or weaken competing phenotypes in early seronegative disease. The intent is not diagnosis by image alone, nor universal escalation to advanced imaging, but a disciplined approach to (i) detect subtle structural and periarticular patterns, (ii) explicitly manage mimics, and (iii) deploy US-PD or MRI selectively when they answer a discriminative clinical question.

Within peripheral disease, two early pattern elements are emphasized: microerosions (small cortical breaks or margin defects that become meaningful in anatomical and distribution context) and enthesitis-adjacent changes (peri-entheseal cortical irregularity and related features that can anchor PsA/SpA-like pathways when paired with activity context).

1.4 Scope statement

This review focuses on peripheral joints and periarticular structures — hands, wrists, feet, ankles, and selected elbows/knees when clinically relevant. Early axial skeleton and pelvic/hip pattern recognition involves distinct lesion taxonomy and modality priorities and will be addressed in a companion manuscript.

2. Clinical frame — which patients and decisions this applies to

2.1 Defining “early” and “seronegative”

For practical purposes, early refers to patients within approximately the first 12–24 months of persistent symptoms or documented inflammatory episodes, recognizing that onset is often imprecise. Seronegative refers to absence of RF and anti-CCP positivity, the two serologic markers formalized in the 2010 ACR/EULAR classification criteria [20]; additional markers (e.g., HLA-B27) are treated as contextual rather than defining. The framework is designed for situations where serology does not provide a phenotype anchor and imaging is asked to reduce diagnostic uncertainty.

2.2 The “low external phenotype” presentation

The core use case is the patient with inflammatory-suggestive pain — morning stiffness, episodic swelling, inflammatory flares, or objective tenderness patterns — but limited external phenotype: minimal swelling on exam, absent deformity, and sometimes absent or occult psoriasis. In such cases, periarticular drivers (tenosynovitis, enthesitis) may dominate symptoms while conventional radiographs remain near-normal.

2.3 Decision stakes — delay, mismatch, progression

Decision stakes are asymmetric. Under-recognition of inflammatory disease can delay therapy intensification and allow structural progression; over-interpretation of ambiguous microfindings can lead to unnecessary immunomodulation. Imaging-first phenotype anchoring is intended to reduce both errors by requiring (i) explicit pattern context, (ii) mimic controls, and (iii) question-driven escalation to US-PD or MRI only when the result is likely to change management posture or follow-up intensity.

3. Related work and evidence context

This narrative review was informed by targeted reading of guideline documents and primary studies addressing imaging in early inflammatory arthritis, seronegative rheumatoid arthritis, prognostic value of imaging lesions, and imaging mimics. Sources were identified through searches of MEDLINE/PubMed supplemented by reference tracing, prioritizing EULAR and ACR guidance, randomized strategy trials, and prognostic cohorts; the goal is not exhaustive synthesis but an evidence-anchored, implementation-oriented framework for peripheral early seronegative presentations.

3.1 Professional guidelines

Current guidelines position imaging as an adjunct when clinical doubt persists, with modality selection driven by the question being asked — structural baseline, active inflammation, or alternative diagnoses [1–4]. Recommendations recognize that radiography provides a structural baseline and distribution context, ultrasound can detect synovitis/tenosynovitis and Doppler activity, and MRI can identify osteitis/BME and occult inflammation when it is decision-relevant.

3.2 Imaging-guided treatment trials: ARCTIC and IMAGINE-RA

ARCTIC [5] and TaSER [17] evaluated ultrasound-guided treat-to-target strategies in early RA and did not demonstrate clear superiority over conventional clinical control. IMAGINE-RA [6], with subsequent 5-year observational follow-up of the randomized cohort [7], evaluated an MRI-guided treat-to-target strategy in patients with RA in clinical remission and likewise did not demonstrate improved clinical or radiographic outcomes compared with conventional treat-to-target care.

These trials evaluate routine imaging targets as escalation triggers in established or controlled disease. They do not negate the role of imaging for early phenotype anchoring in seronegative uncertainty.

3.3 Ultrasound in seronegative RA

Multiple studies support the value of musculoskeletal ultrasound — particularly grayscale synovial hypertrophy, PD activity, tenosynovitis, and ultrasound-detected erosions — in differentiating seronegative RA from OA and other causes of symptoms [8,9]. This literature reinforces a central practical point: inflammatory activity may be present and localizable even when radiographs are non-specific.

3.4 Prognostic value of imaging findings

Observational studies in early arthritis suggest that combinations of structural lesions (including small erosive changes) and objective activity (Doppler signal on ultrasound) are associated with higher likelihood of subsequent structural progression [10,11]; persistent Doppler activity has likewise been associated with relapse and failed tapering of biologic therapy in established disease [18]. In MRI literature, osteitis/BME has repeatedly been linked to increased risk of radiographic progression and erosive development in early disease [12–14].

3.5 Advanced imaging modalities

HR-pQCT can characterize cortical breaks and microstructural bone change at a resolution unavailable to routine clinical modalities and is often used as a research reference for microerosion concepts [15]. Its role here is primarily conceptual — supporting the plausibility that microstructural cortical change exists early — rather than as a routine clinical recommendation.

3.6 Mimics and pseudoerosions

A safety-critical body of work highlights pseudoerosions and other mimics — anatomic concavities, vascular channels, degenerative pits, subchondral cysts, projection artifacts — that can be mistaken for inflammatory erosions [16]. This literature emphasizes that “micro-defects” require multi-view confirmation, distribution logic, and correlation with co-features and activity context.

Crystal-associated arthropathies represent a distinct mimic category [4]. When gout is in the differential, both ultrasound and DECT are recommended imaging modalities; characteristic findings of MSU deposition — the double-contour sign or tophi on ultrasound, or urate deposits on DECT — may support a diagnosis of gout in the appropriate clinical context without requiring synovial fluid analysis [4]. For CPPD, the preferred peripheral imaging approach differs and should not be conflated with DECT-based detection of MSU deposition.

4. Imaging modalities — strengths, limitations, escalation logic

4.1 Plain radiography (XR)

Radiography remains the first-line modality for many suspected inflammatory arthritis presentations because it provides a standardized structural baseline, broad joint-set coverage, and efficient pattern screening [1,3]. XR is particularly valuable for (i) mapping distribution and symmetry across hands/feet, (ii) identifying alignment and biomechanics that may drive symptoms or mimic inflammation, and (iii) establishing longitudinal comparability for detecting change over time.

Limitation. XR is less sensitive for early inflammatory activity and may miss marrow and soft-tissue disease. An XR report stating “no erosions” should be treated as a baseline statement, not as exclusion of inflammatory pathology when clinical suspicion persists.

Where XR adds particular value — and its limits

XR is particularly valuable for reproducible baseline documentation of cortical contour, mineralized periosteal or entheseal change, joint-space architecture, alignment mechanics, and longitudinal comparison. Suspected early inflammatory cortical lesions should be interpreted in pattern context and, when decision-relevant, correlated with US-PD or MRI rather than treated as an XR-only diagnostic endpoint. By contrast, ultrasound is operator- and window-dependent for cortical surfaces and cannot assess intraosseous processes; MRI excels for BME and soft-tissue inflammation but is less efficient for whole-joint-set pattern mapping.

4.2 Ultrasound with power Doppler (US-PD)

US-PD is a high-yield second-line modality when the decisive question is whether symptoms map to active inflammation and where that activity resides — synovium, tendon sheath, or enthesis [8–11]. Strengths include real-time assessment, detection of synovitis and tenosynovitis, and Doppler activity as an objective inflammatory marker. Limitations include operator dependence, variability in scanning protocols, and restricted ability to survey the entire joint set at high detail in routine practice.

4.3 Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)

MRI is most valuable when it answers a discriminative question that XR and US-PD cannot resolve: presence and extent of osteitis/BME as a risk modifier, occult synovitis/tenosynovitis in complex regions, or deep periarticular inflammation [12–14]. MRI should be used selectively in an XR-first pathway — particularly when discordance persists or when marrow-level inflammatory context would change follow-up intensity or therapy posture.

4.4 Modality utility matrix

A pragmatic modality utility matrix summarizes where each modality is most likely to change decisions in early seronegative peripheral disease. Utility is question-dependent and assumes adequate technique.

Table 1. Modality utility matrix for early seronegative peripheral inflammatory arthritis. Legend: +++ high decision impact; ++ moderate; + supportive; − usually not decision-changing (assuming adequate technique). For crystal deposition, both US and DECT can detect MSU deposition (double-contour sign or tophi on US; urate deposits on DECT) in the appropriate clinical context. This matrix is a pragmatic decision-utility framework rather than a formal comparative diagnostic-accuracy ranking; ratings reflect expected clinical actionability within the proposed XR-first workflow.

5. Microerosions and early structural patterns

5.1 Defining microerosions in early disease

Because “microerosion” is used variably in clinical discourse, this review adopts an operational definition: a microerosion candidate is a focal cortical break or margin defect that is anatomically plausible for inflammatory involvement and is supported by

• reproducibility across projections or consistent localization, and/or

  
  

• coherent distribution and co-features — synovitis/tenosynovitis, peri-entheseal change, or MRI inflammatory context.

  
  

The label “candidate” is intentional and signals the need for pattern context and mimic control rather than implying diagnostic certainty.

5.2 Mimics and pseudo-erosions

Microerosion candidates are most commonly confounded by pseudoerosions and degenerative or anatomic variants [16]. Key pitfalls include vascular channels, subchondral cysts/geodes, degenerative pits, traction-related cortical irregularity, and projectional pseudo-defects. Operational checkpoints for practice include

• multi-view confirmation;

  
  

• surface-specific description (marginal vs central);

  
  

• distribution logic (which joints, symmetry); and

  
  

• correlation with activity context (US-PD) when available.

  
  

5.3 Enthesitis-adjacent changes

Enthesitis-adjacent changes refer here to peri-entheseal cortical irregularity and related mineralized responses that gain phenotype value when paired with distribution patterns and activity context. In early seronegative disease, these features can shift probability toward PsA/SpA-like pathways — particularly when accompanied by tendon/enthesis inflammation on US-PD or by regional inflammatory context on MRI — while recognizing that enthesis-adjacent mineralization can also be degenerative or mechanical.

6. Pattern dictionary for phenotype anchoring

Peripheral showcase regions for early pattern recognition include MCP2–3 margins, ulnar styloid/carpus, and MTP joints (particularly MTP5), supplemented by PIP/DIP depending on the phenotype hypothesis. Patterns below function as probability updates and end with a “next best test” question.

Pattern A — marginal microerosion candidates at classic RA sites

Description. Small marginal cortical defects at classic RA-prone sites — MCP margins, ulnar styloid/carpal interfaces, MTP margins — that cluster in a symmetric or RA-leaning distribution. Interpretive context strengthens when co-features such as tenosynovitis or synovitis activity are present.

XR emphasis note. Ensure complementary projections that accentuate cortical rims and reduce pseudoerosion risk; describe surface (marginal) and joint-level location explicitly.

Best next test. US-PD targeted to symptomatic joints and tendon compartments to confirm activity and localize drivers; consider MRI if osteitis/BME assessment would change risk posture.

Pattern B — enthesitis-adjacent cortical changes

Description. Peri-entheseal cortical irregularity with distribution and morphology suggestive of an enthesitis-driven pathway, especially when paired with tendon/enthesis activity signals or mild osteoproliferative context.

XR emphasis note. Describe the enthesis-adjacent location and mineralized response (if present) and distinguish from diffuse degenerative enthesopathy by distribution and co-features.

Best next test. US-PD of the relevant entheses and adjacent tendon sheaths; MRI selectively when deep involvement or BME is suspected.

Pattern C — periosteal reaction and fluffy new bone

Description. Periosteal reaction or fluffy new bone in a peripheral distribution that, when integrated with clinical and soft-tissue context, can support PsA/SpA-like phenotypes over purely erosive RA-like pathways.

XR emphasis note. XR is often the most direct modality for thin mineralized periosteal response; describe location and extent and correlate with adjacent soft-tissue drivers when available.

Best next test. US-PD for enthesitis/tenosynovitis activity mapping; MRI if marrow-level inflammatory context is needed.

Pattern D — DIP involvement with nail changes

Description. DIP-predominant involvement — structural change and/or periarticular patterning — in a context where nail findings are present or suspected, shifting phenotype probability toward psoriatic pathways or selected mimic considerations.

XR emphasis note. Carefully map DIP distribution and distinguish erosive OA patterns by osteophyte/sclerosis context and central vs marginal localization.

Best next test. US-PD of DIP synovitis and extensor tendon insertions if activity localization will change posture; consider MRI selectively for complex cases.

Pattern E — asymmetric oligoarticular distribution

Description. Asymmetric oligoarticular distribution with periarticular drivers (tenosynovitis/enthesitis) and limited classic RA symmetry, which can support PsA/SpA-like pathways or reactive/post-infectious phenotypes depending on clinical context.

XR emphasis note. XR can be particularly useful here to document joint-set selection and exclude a predominantly degenerative architecture.

Best next test. US-PD to localize active drivers at the selected joints; MRI only if deep or discordant features remain unresolved.

7. Structured reporting for rheumatology decision support

7.1 The problem of omission bias

In early seronegative disease, report non-actionability is commonly driven by omission bias: absence of joint-by-joint mapping, lack of distribution and symmetry statements, and incomplete assessment of tendon sheaths and entheses. This can create false reassurance (“normal”) or unsafe escalation (“erosions”) when subtle features are not contextualized.

7.2 What rheumatology needs from imaging reports

Actionable reports in this setting should provide:

• joint-level localization (which surface, which joint, laterality);

  
  

• distribution and symmetry statements;

  
  

• periarticular driver assessment (tenosynovitis, enthesis-adjacent changes);

  
  

• mimic checkpoints when microerosion candidates are described; and

  
  

• explicit next-test logic when uncertainty remains — US-PD vs MRI and the question to be answered.

  
  

7.3 Structured reporting pipelines

Beyond modality choice, diagnostic lift often depends on whether subtle findings are described consistently across readers and timepoints. Template-enforced, descriptor-complete reporting — where required elements (distribution, cortical versus central localization, periarticular drivers, mimics, and uncertainty) are systematically prompted and internally checked for completeness — can reduce variability and improve longitudinal comparability. Such structured workflows function as a reproducibility layer that makes early subtle changes more legible for clinical decision-making without altering the underlying evidence limits of each modality.

8. Escalation framework and order language

8.1 XR-first, question-driven escalation

The proposed escalation framework is XR-first: obtain a standardized structural baseline and distribution map, then escalate to US-PD when the missing information is localization of active inflammation (synovitis/tenosynovitis/enthesitis) or when XR microerosion candidates require activity context. Escalate to MRI selectively when marrow-level inflammatory context (osteitis/BME) or deep anatomy is likely to change risk posture or resolve persistent discordance.

8.2 Order language templates

Order language should force an actionable answer by specifying the phenotype question and the discriminative target.

• For US-PD: request joint and tendon-compartment mapping with semiquantitative severity and PD activity, and specify entheses of concern.

  
  

• For MRI: request assessment for synovitis/tenosynovitis and osteitis/BME in the symptomatic region, and ask for distribution/context statements relevant to inflammatory versus degenerative pathways.

  
  

9. DMARD stratification — linking imaging to treatment posture

9.1 Imaging as probability and risk modifier

In early seronegative disease, imaging should be treated as a modifier of phenotype probability and structural risk, integrated with clinical assessment within treat-to-target principles [19]. Imaging is not a stand-alone trigger for therapy decisions; rather, it helps determine whether the dominant driver is inflammatory, which phenotype is most plausible, and whether risk context supports closer follow-up and earlier consideration of therapy intensification.

9.2 When imaging may support earlier therapy intensification

Imaging features that increase the pretest probability of persistent inflammatory disease and raise concern for structural progression include coherent inflammatory distribution patterns (RA-like marginal microerosion candidates in classic sites or PsA/SpA-like enthesis-driven patterns), objective activity markers (moderate-to-marked PD signal, tenosynovitis), and/or MRI osteitis/BME in the symptomatic region. In such settings, imaging may justify closer monitoring and may support consideration of earlier therapy intensification when aligned with clinical trajectory and guideline-based treat-to-target care.

9.3 When imaging may support re-triage toward mimics

Conversely, imaging that demonstrates a predominantly degenerative/mechanical architecture (alignment-driven changes, osteophyte /sclerosis-dominant patterns, central erosive OA patterns) without convincing activity context lowers the probability that active inflammatory synovitis is the dominant driver at the imaged sites. These findings support re-triage toward mechanical/crystal pathways or watchful reassessment, with targeted US-PD reserved for cases where activity confirmation would change the plan.

10. Pitfalls, reproducibility, and limitations

10.1 Reader variability and protocol dependence

Detection of microerosion candidates and enthesis-adjacent change is sensitive to acquisition quality, projection selection, scanning protocol (for US), and reader search behavior. Standardizing views, defining required descriptors, and explicitly documenting projection adequacy reduce variability and improve comparability.

10.2 False positives and false negatives

False positives arise from pseudoerosions and degenerative variants being labeled as inflammatory; false negatives arise from omission bias and sub-threshold disease. A safe framework therefore requires (i) explicit mimic checkpoints, (ii) pattern-context interpretation, and (iii) targeted escalation to US-PD or MRI when uncertainty is decision-relevant.

10.3 Implementation constraints

Access to US-PD and MRI varies, and operator expertise is heterogeneous. The framework is designed to remain scalable by emphasizing XR-first pattern mapping and question-driven escalation rather than universal advanced imaging.

Conclusion

Early seronegative peripheral inflammatory arthritis is vulnerable to diagnostic inertia because external phenotype and serology may be non-anchoring, and first-line imaging reports may be non-actionable.

A pattern-based approach centered on microerosion candidates, enthesis-adjacent changes, and periarticular drivers — combined with XR-first, question-driven escalation to US-PD and selectively to MRI — is intended to reduce uncertainty, improve report actionability, and support more targeted escalation while explicitly managing mimics.

The primary contribution of this manuscript is an implementation-oriented synthesis: a peripheral pattern dictionary and an escalation/reporting framework designed for reproducible, clinically legible interpretation in early seronegative disease.

Acknowledgments and Conflicts of Interest

Acknowledgments. The author acknowledges the contribution of structured reporting frameworks to the concepts presented in this review. A dedicated companion paper will address early axial and pelvic/hip imaging patterns, where lesion taxonomy, biomechanics, and modality priorities differ substantially from peripheral disease.

Conflicts of interest. The author is the developer of a deterministic structured reporting platform for musculoskeletal imaging. No external funding was received for this work, and no specific product performance claims are made.

References

1. Colebatch AN, Edwards CJ, Østergaard M, et al. EULAR recommendations for the use of imaging of the joints in the clinical management of rheumatoid arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis 2013;72(6):804–814.

2. Mandl P, Navarro-Compán V, Terslev L, et al. EULAR recommendations for the use of imaging in the diagnosis and management of spondyloarthritis in clinical practice. Ann Rheum Dis 2015;74(7):1327–1339.

3. Expert Panel on Musculoskeletal Imaging; Subhas N, Wu F, Fox MG, et al. ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Chronic Extremity Joint Pain–Suspected Inflammatory Arthritis, Crystalline Arthritis, or Erosive Osteoarthritis: 2022 Update. J Am Coll Radiol 2023;20(5S):S20–S32.

4. Mandl P, D’Agostino MA, Navarro-Compán V, et al. 2023 EULAR recommendations on imaging in diagnosis and management of crystal-induced arthropathies in clinical practice. Ann Rheum Dis 2024;83(6):752–759.

5. Haavardsholm EA, Aga AB, Olsen IC, et al. Ultrasound in management of rheumatoid arthritis: ARCTIC randomised controlled strategy trial. BMJ 2016;354:i4205.

6. Møller-Bisgaard S, Hørslev-Petersen K, Ejbjerg B, et al. Effect of magnetic resonance imaging vs conventional treat-to-target strategies on disease activity remission and radiographic progression in rheumatoid arthritis: the IMAGINE-RA randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2019;321(5):461–472.

7. Møller-Bisgaard S, Hørslev-Petersen K, Ørnbjerg LM, et al. Long-term efficacy of a 2-year MRI treat-to-target strategy on disease activity and radiographic progression in patients with rheumatoid arthritis in clinical remission: 5-year follow-up of the IMAGINE-RA randomised trial. RMD Open 2024;10(1):e003945.

8. Wang J, Wang M, Qi Q, et al. High-frequency ultrasound in patients with seronegative rheumatoid arthritis. Sci Rep 2022;12:21372.

9. Cen Y, He D, Wang P, Qin Y, Huang M. Contribution of musculoskeletal ultrasound in the diagnosis of seronegative rheumatoid arthritis. J Ultrasound Med 2024;43(10):1929–1936. doi:10.1002/jum.16527.

10. Funck-Brentano T, Gandjbakhch F, Etchepare F, et al. Prediction of radiographic damage in early arthritis by sonographic erosions and power Doppler signal: a longitudinal observational study. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) 2013;65(6):896–902.

11. Sreerangaiah D, Grayer M, Fisher BA, et al. Quantitative power Doppler ultrasound measures of peripheral joint synovitis in poor prognosis early rheumatoid arthritis predict radiographic progression. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2016;55(1):89–93.

12. Haavardsholm EA, Bøyesen P, Østergaard M, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging findings in 84 patients with early rheumatoid arthritis: bone marrow oedema predicts erosive progression. Ann Rheum Dis 2008;67(6):794–800.

13. Hetland ML, Ejbjerg B, Hørslev-Petersen K, et al. MRI bone oedema is the strongest predictor of subsequent radiographic progression in early rheumatoid arthritis. Results from a 2-year randomised controlled trial (CIMESTRA). Ann Rheum Dis 2009;68(3):384–390.

14. McQueen FM, Ostendorf B. What is MRI bone oedema in rheumatoid arthritis and why does it matter? Arthritis Res Ther 2006;8(6):222.

15. Klose-Jensen R, Tse JJ, Keller KK, et al. High-resolution peripheral quantitative computed tomography for bone evaluation in inflammatory rheumatic disease. Front Med (Lausanne) 2020;7:337.

16. Hirtler L, Rath C, Platzgummer H, Aletaha D, Kainberger F. Pseudoerosions of hands and feet in rheumatoid arthritis: anatomic concepts and redefinition. J Clin Med 2019;8(12):2174.

17. Dale J, Stirling A, Zhang R, et al. Targeting ultrasound remission in early rheumatoid arthritis: the results of the TaSER study, a randomised clinical trial. Ann Rheum Dis 2016;75(6):1043–1050.

18. Naredo E, Valor L, De la Torre I, et al. Predictive value of Doppler ultrasound-detected synovitis in relation to failed tapering of biologic therapy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2015;54(8):1408–1414.

19. Smolen JS, Edwards CJ, Konzett V, et al. EULAR recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis with synthetic and biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs: 2025 update. Ann Rheum Dis. Published online March 12, 2026. doi:10.1016/j.ard.2026.01.023.

20. Aletaha D, Neogi T, Silman AJ, et al. 2010 rheumatoid arthritis classification criteria: an American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism collaborative initiative. Ann Rheum Dis 2010;69(9):1580–1588.