Are the 2002 American College of Rheumatology guidelines for the management of rheumatoid arthritis being followed in Canada's largest academic rheumatology center?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether rheumatologists working in Canada's largest academic rheumatology center (University Health Network/Mount Sinai Hospital) adhere to the 2002 American College of Rheumatology (ACR) guidelines for the management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: Ten patients with RA seen between January 1 and December 30, 2005, were randomly selected from each rheumatologist. A standardized form was used to verify whether the following items were collected at each visit: (1) degree of joint pain, (2) duration of morning stiffness, (3) degree of fatigue, (4) number of tender/swollen joints, and (5) assessment of function. Items recommended for periodic assessment were also collected and included: (1) examination for joint damage, (2) erythrocyte sedimentation rate and/or C-reactive protein, and (3) radiographic assessment of joint damage (radiograph/magnetic resonance imaging). RESULTS: One hundred thirty charts and 313 total visits met inclusion criteria. No rheumatologist consistently assessed each ACR item. Of the recommended items, tender and swollen joint counts and pain were most commonly assessed (95%, 95%, and 69%, respectively). Functional assessment, morning stiffness, and fatigue were least commonly reported (48%, 46%, and 33%, respectively). Items recommended for periodic assessment were not regularly recorded. There was a trend for the recommended items to be reported more regularly for new patients, patients taking a disease modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD), and patients for whom a DMARD was added or increased in dosage. CONCLUSION: Rheumatologists follow many but not all of the recommendations included in the revised ACR guidelines. The reasons underlying the noncompliance to some of the recommendations are not fully understood. In order to improve the adoption of future clinical practice guidelines, the ACR may have to plan specific dissemination and implementation strategies and fund studies to formally assess the effect of guideline use on clinical outcomes.
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 | 0.005 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".