Anterior Chest Wall Pain in Recent Inflammatory Back Pain Suggestive of Spondyloarthritis. Data from the DESIR Cohort
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the prevalence of anterior chest wall (ACW) pain in patients with recent inflammatory back pain (IBP) suggestive of spondyloarthritis (SpA), and to investigate the influence of ACW pain on the overall features of these patients. METHODS: The DESIR cohort is a prospective, multicenter French cohort of patients with early IBP suggestive of SpA, including 708 patients (mean age 33.8 yrs, 53.8% females, 57.3% HLA-B27-positive). ACW pain was defined by at least 1 episode of chest wall pain attributed to SpA by the rheumatologist, after ruling out other causes of chest pain. Data on the baseline demographic characteristics, functional status and quality of life, imaging features, bone mineral density, and blood tests were compared in patients with and those without ACW pain. Factors associated with ACW pain were identified by univariate and multivariate analysis (logistic regression). RESULTS: The prevalence of ACW pain in the DESIR cohort (n = 316/708 patients) was 44.6% (95% CI 40.9-48.3). ACW pain occurred after the first symptoms of IBP in 62%. Localization was diffuse in 41% of the positive cases. A stepwise multivariate analysis found an association between ACW pain and the enthesitis score, involvement of thoracic spine, diagnosis of ankylosing spondylitis (AS), and radiographic abnormalities of sacroiliac joints. CONCLUSION: In recent IBP suggestive of SpA, presence of ACW pain is associated with enthesitis, thoracic spine involvement, radiographic sacroiliitis, diagnosis of AS, and with a more severe disease. ACW pain could be interpreted as a diagnostic feature for AS.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".