Reevaluation of the Role of Duration of Morning Stiffness in the Assessment of Rheumatoid Arthritis Activity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective. To evaluate the utility of the duration of morning stiffness (MS), as a patient-reported outcome (PRO), in assessing rheumatoid arthritis (RA) disease activity. Methods. We acquired information on 5439 patients in QUEST-RA, an international database of patients with RA evaluated by a standard protocol. MS duration was assessed from time of waking to time of maximal improvement. Ability of MS duration to differentiate RA activity states, based on Disease Activity Score (DAS)28, was assessed by analysis of variance; and a receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curve was plotted for discriminating clinically active (DAS28 > 3.2) from less active (DAS28 ≤ 3.2) RA. Mixed-effect analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models were used to assess the utility of adding MS duration to Routine Assessment of Patient Index Data (RAPID)3, a PRO index based on physical function, pain, and general health (GH), in predicting the 3-variable DAS28 (DAS28v3). Results. MS duration had moderate correlation (r = 0.41–0.48) with pain, Health Assessment Questionnaire, and GH; and weak correlation (r = 0.23–0.39) with joint counts and erythrocyte sedimentation rate. MS duration differed significantly among patients with different RA activity (p < 0.001). The area under the ROC curve of 0.74 (95% CI 0.72–0.75) showed moderate ability of MS duration to differentiate clinically active from less active RA. ANCOVA showed significant interactive effects between RAPID3 and the MS duration categories (p = 0.0005) in predicting DAS28v3. The effect of MS was found to be clinically important in patients with the low RAPID3 scores (< 6) in whom the presence of MS may indicate clinically active disease (DAS28v3 > 3.2). Conclusion. MS duration has a moderate correlation with RA disease activity. Assessment of MS duration may be clinically helpful in patients with low RAPID3 scores.
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 | 0.022 | 0.051 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".