OARSI/OMERACT Criteria of Being Considered a Candidate for Total Joint Replacement in Knee/Hip Osteoarthritis as an Endpoint in Clinical Trials Evaluating Potential Disease Modifying Osteoarthritic Drugs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: A disease-modifying osteoarthritic drug (DMOAD) should interfere with the cartilage breakdown observed and improve symptoms or prevent deterioration of the patient's clinical condition. We propose a composite index including structural and symptomatic variables of osteoarthritis (OA) as criteria for being considered a candidate for total joint replacement as an endpoint in clinical trials evaluating potential DMOAD. METHODS: An OARSI/OMERACT task force conducted this study in 3 steps: (1) The 3 main domains -- pain, function, structure -- were revisited; (2) For each of the domains a "non-acceptable state" and a "relevant" progression for their structure were defined; and (3) a set of criteria was proposed combining the information from these 3 domains. RESULTS: A questionnaire was elaborated for the domains "pain" and "function." Systematic research of the literature and evaluation of different databases concluded that the domain "structure" should be evaluated by radiological joint space width in millimeters. An unacceptable radiographic progression was defined as a change in the joint space width over the measurement error. An international, cross-sectional study is proposing a definition of a "nonacceptable symptom state." CONCLUSION: The objective of the ongoing OARSI/OMERACT initiative is to propose criteria for being considered a candidate for total joint replacement to be used as an endpoint in clinical trials evaluating potential DMOAD. The preliminary steps of this initiative have been completed.
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 | 0.129 | 0.092 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".