Remission in Rheumatoid Arthritis: Physician and Patient Perspectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine the prevalence of remission in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) as determined by physicians and patients independently, and to determine the degree of agreement among methods, the strength of predictor variables of remission, and the length of remission. METHODS: Eight hundred patients with RA completed a remission questionnaire on the day of their rheumatologist visit and their rheumatologists completed a separate questionnaire the same day. The question(s) were: "Given all your experience with disease activity in RA, are you [is your patient] currently in remission?". Patients also completed 0-10 visual analog scales for RA activity, pain, and functional limitation. RESULTS: The percentage of patients in remission by physician and patient assessment was 34.8% [95% confidence interval (CI) 31.4-38.2] and 30.9% (95% CI 27.7-34.20), respectively. The percentage of patients classified concordantly (full agreement) was 78.6%, and the associated kappa statistic was 0.54 (95% CI 0.45-0.58). The median duration of remission was 2.0 years. The median RA activity, pain, and functional scores were 1.0, 1.5, and 1.25 for patient-determined remission and 1.5, 1.5, and 1.5 for physician-determined remission. CONCLUSION: Physician and patient estimates of remission in RA are similar (34.8% to 30.9%), and agreement was 78.6% (kappa 0.53). Based on previous data and the observed presence of disease activity, this definition of remission appears to be a measure of minimal disease activity rather than true remission. The problem of remission rates will not be solved until a consensus definition that has relevance in research and the clinic is developed.
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 | 0.007 | 0.035 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".