MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1574262722 · doi:10.1002/art.20414

Validation exercise of the Ankylosing Spondylitis Assessment Study (ASAS) group response criteria in ankylosing spondylitis patients treated with biologics

2004· article· en· W1574262722 on OpenAlexaff
Millicent Stone, Robert D. Inman, James G. Wright, Andreas Maetzel

Bibliographic record

VenueArthritis Care & Research · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpondyloarthritis Studies and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health NetworkToronto Western HospitalUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAnkylosing spondylitisInfliximabPhysical therapySpondylitisRheumatologyDiseaseInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: To define what expert clinicians consider a dramatic response in ankylosing spondylitis (AS) patients treated with biologic therapies based on patient and physician assessments of global disease activity. To compare this expert clinician-derived criteria to the Ankylosing Spondylitis Assessment Study (ASAS) Group criteria for improvement. METHODS: Forty consecutive AS patients were treated in a 1-year open-label protocol with infliximab. Response to treatment at week 52 was defined using ASAS response criteria. For the purpose of this exercise, improvement using ASAS criteria was defined by consensus among experts as good with 50% improvement from baseline (ASAS(50)) and dramatic with 70% improvement from baseline (ASAS(70)). Experts established separate criteria for improvement in disease activity as good or dramatic based on patient and physician global assessment of disease activity. RESULTS: Twelve of 40 patients met the ASAS(70) criteria, however, only 8 met the expert definition of a dramatic improvement based on physician global scores and 5 met the expert definition of a dramatic improvement based on patient global assessment of disease activity. Agreement was poor between ASAS(50) or ASAS(70) and expert definition of improvement based on physician global scores (kappa < 0.3), but agreement was moderate to good between ASAS(50) or ASAS(70) and expert definition of improvement based on patient global scores, (kappa = 0.6-0.7). CONCLUSIONS: Differential response experienced by AS patients treated with infliximab was adequately captured by the ASAS composite improvement criteria. Overall, this study demonstrates the validity of the ASAS criteria for the detection of improvement in AS patients treated with biologics. However, the patient global assessment of disease activity may be sufficient to monitor changes in disease activity in these patients.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.054
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.084
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.054
Threshold uncertainty score0.284

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0540.084
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.037
GPT teacher head0.369
Teacher spread0.332 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations33
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArthritis Care & ResearchSame topicSpondyloarthritis Studies and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207