Evaluation and validation of the patient acceptable symptom state (PASS) in patients with ankylosing spondylitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) constitutes an absolute level of patient well-being and represents an ambitious target for disease management. We explored contributors to PASS, validated the PASS concept, and assessed thresholds of self-reported outcomes below which patients considered themselves in PASS. METHODS: Patients with ankylosing spondylitis completed a questionnaire that included self-reported assessments of pain, fatigue, disease activity, function, patient global, quality of life (QOL), and whether they considered their current disease state satisfactory or not. Stepwise logistic regression was used to assess contributors to PASS. PASS was validated by analyzing proportions of patients reporting need for a rheumatologist and who were in current flare. PASS thresholds for self-reported outcomes were estimated using an anchoring method based on the patient's opinion and targeting the 75th percentile of the cumulative distribution. RESULTS: PASS data were available for 291 patients, of whom 169 (58%) were in PASS. Significant contributors were age (Exp[B] 1.05; P = 0.003), patient global disease activity (Exp[B] 0.79; P = 0.008), and function (Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index [BASFI]; Exp[B] 0.72; P < 0.001). PASS reflected need to consult the rheumatologist and current flare (71% and 73% correctly classified, respectively) and significantly contributed to QOL (B = -5.99; 95% confidence interval -7.16, -4.08). PASS thresholds were 5.0 for patient global disease activity, 5.0 for total back pain, 22.8 for fatigue, 4.8 for disease activity (Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index), and 4.0 for function (BASFI). CONCLUSION: A majority of patients (58%) reported being in PASS. PASS thresholds for pain and function were unexpectedly high, possibly suggesting adaptation to the consequences of the disease.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".