PT435 Features factors of cardiovascular risk in patients with psoriatic arthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
From two studies (Lambert et al, 1976; Shore and Ansell, 1982), it was concluded that juvenile psoriatic arthritis is a distinct entity with one group of patients virtually indistinguishable from those with juvenile chronic arthritis initially, while all the patterns of psoriatic arthritis recorded in adults were seen in the remainder. A family history of psoriasis occurs in about half the patients, and one of arthritis in 20%. A swollen tendon sheath of a single finger or toe associated with synovitis in two or three joints of the digits is highly characteristic.Accurate diagnosis is important because these patients tend to go on todevelop an asymmetrical destructive polyarthritis. This needs to be recognized early to utilize effective slow-acting drugs. Southwood and colleagues (1989) have defined two quite distinct groups of juvenile psoriatic arthritis: those young at onset, who are usually girls, and those in adolescence, who are more frequently boys. It is possible that there are other variants, including girls aged 8–10 years with a polyarthritic onset who may go on to develop arthritis mutilans. The concept of 'probable juvenile psoriatic arthritis' is supported by follow-up, in that a significant proportion of such patients do pass into the definite group. It is highly desirable that the suggested Vancouver criteria are validated by a long-term prospective study, which will probably need to be multicentred to ensure that the subgroups are large enough for satisfactory conclusions to be drawn.In the management of this serious arthritis in childhood, it is important to consider long-acting drugs early, before undue damage to joints has occurred. Again, multicentre studies are needed to determine which is the most useful. Presently, methotrexate appears to be the drug of choice.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".