Enhanced Patient Involvement and the Need to Revise the Core Set — Report from the Psoriatic Arthritis Working Group at OMERACT 2014
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To discuss the need for revision of the "core set" of domains to be included for assessment in psoriatic arthritis (PsA) randomized controlled trials and longitudinal observational studies, review work undertaken since the 2012 meeting of Outcome Measures for Rheumatology 11 (OMERACT 11) to include patient perspectives in this revision, and reassess proposed composite measures in the context of new research data and the OMERACT Filter 2.0 framework. METHODS: The OMERACT 12 (2014) PsA working group presented work completed over the last 2 years to incorporate patient involvement in PsA outcomes research, review the endorsed PsA core set based on the patient perspective as well as new research findings, and further develop PsA responder indices. Breakout groups then discussed 2 topics: (1) the need to revise the PsA core set, and opportunities to add, move, or merge existing domains to improve existing redundancy; and (2) how to incorporate the core set in a composite index. Breakout groups fed back to the working group before participant voting. RESULTS: Meeting participants endorsed the need to revise the PsA core set according to the OMERACT Filter 2.0 framework (100%), and the inclusion of disease impact (94%) and fatigue (72%) in the inner circle. Breakout group feedback suggested the core set revision was an opportunity to consolidate pathophysiologic aspects such as arthritis, enthesitis, dactylitis, spondylitis as "inflammatory musculoskeletal disease," and nail and skin psoriasis as "psoriasis activity." CONCLUSION: Future work will focus on updating the PsA core set and development of responder indices with ongoing, meaningful involvement of patient research partners.
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 | 0.247 | 0.420 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".