Comparison of the Clinical Expression of Patients with Ankylosing Spondylitis from Europe and Latin America
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical, demographic, and serologic characteristics and the treatment of patients diagnosed with ankylosing spondylitis (AS) from Europe (EU) and Latin America (LA). METHODS: We included 3439 patients from national registries: the Spanish Registry of Spondyloarthritis (REGISPONSER), the Belgian registry (ASPECT), and the Latin American Registry of Spondyloarthropathies (RESPONDIA). We selected patients with diagnosis of AS who met the modified New York classification criteria. Demographic, clinical, disease activity, functional, and metrological measurement data were recorded. Current treatment was recorded. The population was classified into 2 groups: patients with disease duration < 10 years and those with disease duration ≥ 10 years. A descriptive and comparative analysis of variables of both groups was carried out. RESULTS: There were 2356 patients in EU group and 1083 in LA group. Prevalence of HLA-B27 was 71% in LA group and 83% in EU group (p < 0.001). We found a greater frequency of peripheral arthritis and enthesitis (p < 0.001) in the LA population; prevalence of arthritis was 57% in LA and 42% in EU, and for enthesitis, 54% and 38%. Except for treatment with anti-tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF), the use of nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAID), corticosteroids, and disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARD), and the association of anti-TNF and methotrexate use showed a significant difference (p < 0.001) in the 2 populations. CONCLUSION: The principal differences in the clinical manifestations of patients with AS from EU and LA were the greater frequency of peripheral arthritis and enthesitis in LA group, the higher percentage of HLA-B27 in EU group, and the form of treatment, with a greater use of NSAID, steroids, and DMARD in the LA group.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".