The Influence of the Definition of Patient Global Assessment in Assessment of Disease Activity According to the Disease Activity Score (DAS28) in Rheumatoid Arthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Patient global assessment (PGA) is one of the 4 items included in the Disease Activity Score (DAS28) for evaluation of activity of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). We studied the influence of the use of 3 different techniques of PGA on the assessment of disease activity. METHODS: We evaluated 3 different DAS28 according to the technique of PGA in 108 patients with active RA before and after 12 weeks of etanercept therapy. RESULTS: The reliability (intraclass coefficient of correlation) between screening and baseline was very high and similar for the 3 DAS28. The percentage of patients in the different states of disease (from remission to higher disease activity) and the sensitivity to change across the 3 DAS28 scales were very similar. CONCLUSION: The different techniques of collection of PGA to be included in the DAS calculation yield similar results. However, an accepted, unequivocal technique should be encouraged in order to reduce heterogeneity in scoring DAS among patients with RA.
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 | 0.063 | 0.145 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".