Development of a Disease Activity and Responder Index for Psoriatic Arthritis — Report of the Psoriatic Arthritis Module at OMERACT 11
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This module reflected work within the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis (GRAPPA) to develop and validate composite disease activity measures in psoriatic arthritis (PsA). At the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) 8 Meeting, a core set of domains to be assessed in randomized controlled trials (RCT) and longitudinal observational studies of PsA was agreed upon. At OMERACT 10, 5 proposed composite responder definitions for PsA were reviewed and discussed, including new data from the GRACE (GRAppa Composite Exercise) study. At OMERACT 11, ongoing retrospective analyses of RCT data using the 3 proposed measures (Composite Psoriatic Disease Activity Index, Psoriatic Arthritis Disease Activity Score, and Arithmetic Mean of the Desirability Function) were discussed in detail. There was agreement that developing composite outcome measures for use in RCT and longitudinal observational studies in PsA was important. Concerns were expressed regarding development of a single measure that encompassed diverse domains, such as joint counts, quality of life (QOL), and disability measures. It was emphasized that the use of any composite measure should include the ability to differentiate between activity in individual domains, such as enthesitis or psoriasis, such that the effect of each could be assessed independently. It was also agreed that patients would be systematically involved in further development and refinement of composite measures. Future plans include qualitative work with patients to explore their experience of disease activity and statistical modeling to explore how each of the proposed measures will perform in different disease subgroups.
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 | 0.038 | 0.054 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.005 |
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".