MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2018725039 · doi:10.3899/jrheum.120952

Remission in Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Comparison of the 2 Newly Proposed ACR/EULAR Remission Criteria with the Rheumatoid Arthritis Disease Activity Index-5, a Patient Self-report Disease Activity Index

2013· article· en· W2018725039 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
B. Rintelen, Judith Sautner, Pia M. Haindl, H.T. Mai, Hans‐Peter Brezinschek, Burkhard F. Leeb

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Rheumatology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRheumatoid Arthritis Research and Therapies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRheumatoid arthritisRheumatismRheumatologyInternal medicineKappaGold standard (test)Physical therapyCohen's kappaStatisticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: We analyzed whether a patient self-report remission criterion, such as that according to the Rheumatoid Arthritis Disease Activity Index-5 (RADAI-5), meets the criteria of the 2011 proposed American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism (ACR/EULAR) definition of remission. METHODS: The 2 approaches of the ACR/EULAR proposal [Boolean- and Simplified Disease Activity Index (SDAI)-based] as well as the RADAI-5 were used to assess whether patients with RA are in remission. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values (PPV, NPV), and kappa analyses were performed to illustrate the relationship among the different approaches defining remission at a group level. RESULTS: In total, 705 patients' assessments were included. Eighty-nine patients were classified as being in remission according to the Boolean-based and 169 according to the SDAI-based definition of the ACR/EULAR proposals, and 154 according to the RADAI-5. Sixty-eight assessments were classified as being in remission according to all 3 definitions. In the case of RADAI-5 remission, sensitivity was 78%, specificity 86%, PPV 45%, and NPV 96%, indicating remission according to the Boolean-based definition; and 60%, 92%, 66%, and 90%, respectively, indicating remission according to the SDAI-based definition. In the case of remission according to the SDAI-based ACR/EULAR definition, sensitivity was 52%, specificity 100%, PPV 98%, and NPV 87%, also indicating remission according to the Boolean definition; while according to the Boolean definition the values were 98%, 87%, 52%, and 100%, respectively. Kappa statistics showed fair to good agreement for all 3 definitions. CONCLUSION: Nearly twice as many assessments were classified as being in remission using the SDAI-based or the RADAI-5 definitions when compared to the Boolean-based definition. Remission according to the RADAI-5 also was highly specific for both ACR/EULAR criteria. Sensitivity for the RADAI-5 criterion was even better for the Boolean-based definition than that for the SDAI-based definition.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.026
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.988
Threshold uncertainty score0.064

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.261 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designObservational
DomainMethods
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations13
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Rheumatology→Same topicRheumatoid Arthritis Research and Therapies→French-language works237,207→