The Rheumatoid Arthritis Disease Activity Index-5 in Daily Use. Proposal for Disease Activity Categories
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To establish thresholds for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) activity categories according to the RA Disease Activity Index-5 (RADAI-5). METHODS: Three hundred ninety-two patients with RA were categorized according to Disease Activity Score 28-joint count (DAS28), Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI), and their satisfaction (PATSAT) with disease status. These measures built the basis for the calculation of disease activity limits for the RADAI-5. Patient assessments simultaneously meeting the identical DAS28, CDAI, and PATSAT categories were taken as the references to establish the thresholds for the respective RADAI-5 categories by calculating the third quartile of the corresponding RADAI-5 values. Subsequently, these new thresholds were applied to all assessments. RESULTS: Seven hundred fifty-eight assessments in 392 patients (2 assessments median/patient) could be obtained, most patients having mild to moderate disease according to DAS28 and CDAI. Calculating the third quartile, the RADAI-5 thresholds were as follows: 0.0-1.4 for a remission-like state, 1.6-3.0 for mild disease activity, 3.2-5.4 for moderate, and 5.6-10.0 for high disease activity. Categorization according to the RADAI-5 showed a normal distribution, while DAS28 and CDAI were somewhat shifted to the left. DAS28 and CDAI levels, as well as tender and swollen joint counts and physician's global assessment and erythrocyte sedimentation rate, proved to be highly significantly different within the different RADAI-5 categories (Kruskal-Wallis test p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: RADAI-5 thresholds for RA activity could be elaborated. Patient self-report questionnaires may substitute composite disease activity scores and may contribute significantly to improving documentation in routine patient care.
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 | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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".