Health-related quality of life of patients with psoriatic arthritis: A comparison with patients with rheumatoid arthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare health-related quality of life (QOL) between patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), using the Medical Outcomes Study Short Form health survey (SF-36) and the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ). METHODS: Both the SF-36 and the HAQ were administered to 107 PsA patients attending the University of Toronto Psoriatic Arthritis Clinic between January 1 and December 31, 1994, and to 43 RA patients attending a University of Toronto-affiliated RA clinic during the same period. Standardized assessments of disease activity and severity were also performed at each clinic visit. Logistic regression analysis was used to compare health-related QOL between PsA and RA. RESULTS: Both patient populations experienced lower physical health compared with that of a general population sample. The RA patients demonstrated more active inflammatory disease at the time of assessment than the PsA patients. The PsA patients were younger, and more were men. Logistic regression analyses showed that patients with PsA reported higher levels of vitality than patients with RA, even after adjusting for the observed differences in clinical and demographic characteristics. PsA patients, however, reported more role limitations due to emotional problems and more bodily pain after adjusting for the difference in vitality and other covariates. CONCLUSIONS: Although both patient populations experienced reduced QOL, there were some meaningful differences in how the 2 conditions affect health-related QOL. Further, it appeared that there may be unique disabilities associated with the psoriasis dimension of PsA.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".