High Prevalence of Psoriatic Arthritis in a Cohort of Patients with Psoriasis Seen in a Dermatology Practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: The prevalence of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is expected to range from 5 to 40% in individuals with psoriasis. The objective of this study was to quantify the prevalence of PsA in psoriasis patients seen in a dermatology practice and to define their characteristics using the validated Psoriatic Arthritis Screening Questionnaire (PASQ). METHODS: Patients with definite plaque psoriasis (as determined by a dermatologist) completed the self-administered PASQ tool, and patients with a score ≥ 7 or ≥ 9 were assessed by a rheumatologist to ascertain the diagnosis of PsA according to the CASPAR (Classification Criteria for Psoriatic Arthritis) criteria. RESULTS: Using a PASQ cutoff of 7, the estimated prevalence (95% CI) of PsA was 40.9% (29.0-52.8%), whereas a prevalence (95% CI) of 36.4% (24.8-48.0%) was estimated when a PASQ cutoff of 9 was used. CONCLUSION: Our estimated prevalence of PsA in psoriasis patients from a population of patients drawn from a dermatology practice is greater than most previous estimates. This finding illustrates the importance of screening for PsA in psoriasis patients as this comorbidity may affect the course of treatment and, if left untreated, may have a profound effect on the disability and quality of life of a large number of psoriasis 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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".