Development and validation of the Edmonton Ankylosing Spondylitis Metrology Index
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Assessment of spinal and hip mobility has been recommended by the Assessments in Ankylosing Spondylitis (AS) Working Group for clinical trials and record keeping, although suggested measures primarily reflect structural damage. Our objective was to validate a simple, 4-item composite measure of spinal and hip mobility, the Edmonton AS Metrology Index (EDASMI). METHODS: We assessed the EDASMI and the Bath AS Metrology Index (BASMI) using a total of 263 patients from 3 countries: Canada (n = 205), Australia (n = 29), and Colombia (n = 29). Intra- and interobserver reliability were assessed in a subset of 44 patients. Construct validity with respect to disease activity (Bath AS Disease Activity Index [BASDAI]), function (Bath AS Functional Index [BASFI]), and structural damage (modified Stoke AS Spinal Score [mSASSS]) was analyzed using correlation and hierarchical regression. Responsiveness was assessed in a subset of 33 patients who received either anti-tumor necrosis factor alpha therapy (n = 26) or pamidronate (n = 7) over 24 weeks. RESULTS: In contrast to the EDASMI, BASMI scores covered a limited range, with 70% of patients demonstrating a score < or =3 (range 0-10) and 4 of 5 individual measures demonstrating substantial floor effects. Both measures were highly reliable (intraclass correlation coefficient >0.90) and demonstrated similar construct validity (EDASMI correlated with disease duration [0.52], BASDAI [0.24], BASFI [0.61], Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Radiology Index [0.79], mSASSS [0.75]; P < 0.001 for all). The change in EDASMI score was significant after 24 weeks of therapy (standardized response mean 0.40; P = 0.03), but change in the BASMI was not significant. CONCLUSION: The EDASMI is a simple, rapid, and reliable tool for the assessment of spinal mobility in AS that is responsive to therapeutic intervention.
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 | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".