MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1965994758 · doi:10.3899/jrheum.140878

Systematic Review of Treatment Effectiveness and Outcome Measures for Enthesitis in Psoriatic Arthritis

2014· review· en· W1965994758 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Ana‐Maria Orbai, Joshua E. Weitz, Evan Siegel, Stefan Siebert, L. Savage, Sibel Zehra Aydın, Jolanda J. Luime, Ori Elkayam, Barbara Neerinckx, Slavo Urbancek, Kurt de Vlam, Christopher T. Ritchlin

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Rheumatology · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpondyloarthritis Studies and Treatments
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Infection and Immunity
FundersJanssen PharmaceuticalsMedical Research Council
KeywordsEnthesitisMedicinePsoriatic arthritisPsoriasisRandomized controlled trialClinical trialArthritisDermatologyPhysical therapyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Enthesitis is a characteristic feature of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and is important in disease pathogenesis and classification. Use of clinical outcome measures for enthesitis is heterogeneous, and only 1 measure has been specifically developed and validated in PsA. Ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging assessments of enthesitis may have advantages over clinical examination but are insufficiently studied. As part of an update of treatment recommendations by the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis (GRAPPA), we performed a systematic literature review and identified randomized controlled trials with enthesitis outcomes in PsA. For each treatment agent we calculated treatment effect sizes (where applicable) and graded the level of evidence.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.056
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.059

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.056
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0120.012
Bibliometrics0.0070.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.310 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations53
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of RheumatologySame topicSpondyloarthritis Studies and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207