Evaluation of Selected Rheumatoid Arthritis Activity Scores for Office-based Assessment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Patient-reported measures can quickly provide assessments of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) disease activity in the office setting and do not require a laboratory test or physician examination. The goal of our study was to establish the validity of patient-reported indices compared to the C-reactive protein-based Disease Activity Score (DAS28-CRP4). METHODS: Baseline and 1-year followup DAS28-CRP4 data were obtained from 740 RA subjects and were compared to indices (MDHAQ, CDAI, RAPID, RADAI, GAS) according to cyclic citrullinated peptide (CCP) status and change at 1 year. Pairwise correlations were calculated for each index. RESULTS: Among 740 subjects, mean age 57 years, disease duration 14 years, the CDAI (r = 0.84, Δ r = 0.80) and RAPID (r = 0.71, Δ r = 0.70) had the highest correlation with the DAS28-CRP4 scores at baseline and 1 year. These correlations were not influenced by CCP status, disease-modifying antirheumatic drug use, biologic use, or by disease duration. CONCLUSION: In RA, the CDAI and RAPID correlated well with the DAS28-CRP4. They may both be practical and informative in the care of patients in the office setting.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.003 | 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".