Measures of adult and juvenile dermatomyositis, polymyositis, and inclusion body myositis: Physician and Patient/Parent Global Activity, Manual Muscle Testing (MMT), Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ)/Childhood Health Assessment Questionnaire (C‐HAQ), Childhood Myositis Assessment Scale (CMAS), Myositis Disease Activity Assessment Tool (MDAAT), Disease Activity Score (DAS), Short Form 36 (SF‐36), Child Health Questionnaire (CHQ), Physician Global Damage, Myositis Damage Index (MDI), Quantitative Muscle Testing (QMT), Myositis Functional Index‐2 (FI‐2), Myositis Activities Profile (MAP), Inclusion Body Myositis Functional Rating Scale (IBMFRS), Cutaneous Dermatomyositis Disease Area and Severity Index (CDASI), Cutaneous Assessment Tool (CAT), Dermatomyositis Skin Severity Index (DSSI), Skindex, and Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The idiopathic inflammatory myopathies, including adult and juvenile dermatomyositis (DM), polymyositis (PM), and inclusion body myositis (IBM), are rare systemic autoimmune diseases that are characterized by chronic proximal muscle inflammation and weakness. In previous decades, there were few commonly used outcome measures in myositis, and those outcome measures were not validated. Thus, in the past the assessment of outcomes in therapeutic trials was focused on non-standardized measurement of muscle strength and function only. Over the last decade, however, two international collaborative groups, the International Myositis Assessment and Clinical Studies Group (IMACS) and the Paediatric Rheumatology International Trials Organisation (PRINTO), have defined consensus core set measures to assess myositis disease activity and damage in adults and children and have begun to validate and standardize these measures (1;2). IMACS and PRINTO have also developed preliminary definitions of improvement, which can be used as outcomes for therapeutic trials. These response criteria combine the core set activity measures to determine clinically meaningful improvement (3;4). Our section on myositis assessment focuses first on these core set measures of disease activity, quality of life (which is part of the PRINTO core set of activity, but a separate assessment domain for IMACS), and disease damage. To date, most of the validation data available for these core set measures are in patients with juvenile DM, with more limited validation in adult patients with DM or PM. Despite these efforts, there are still important gaps in validation of these core set measures, and no validation studies have yet been performed in patients with IBM, although they are now being used frequently in myositis therapeutic trials. We end the chapter with tools that have been used primarily in research studies and a few therapeutic trials, which have some supporting validation in certain subgroups of patients with myositis. These tools are primarily organ-specific measures, including strength and functional assessments and cutaneous assessment tools. Quantitative muscle testing and the IBM Functional Rating Scale are the most commonly used instruments to assess patients with IBM, and although they have little supporting validation in myositis, quantitative muscle testing has been well validated in other myopathies and has been used frequently as an endpoint in therapeutic trials for IBM. Although the methods for the assessment of myositis patients have been limited in their scope, great strides have been made in the last decade in the development of new partially validated tools (see Table 1) and international multidisciplinary consensus in using these measures that should enhance our understanding of the diverse effects of myositis on many organ systems and the development of new therapies. Table 1 Summary of Measures of Disease Activity in Myositis Physician and Patient/Parent Global Activity General Description Purpose An overall rating of the disease activity related to myositis, defined as potentially reversible pathology or physiology resulting from the underlying disease process (1).
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".