Is There Hope for Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis Patient-reported Outcomes in Support of Clinical Decisions?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Imagine if there were reliable, patient-reported assessments of disease activity that could be reported remotely to the physician, who could then make therapy decisions without needing to see the patient in person. While such a tool could greatly facilitate patient care, it is still just a fantasy. In a study reported in this issue of The Journal , Dijkstra, et al 1 sought to replicate previous work with patient-reported outcomes (PRO) using a new format of the assessment tool. In particular they sought to validate a pictorial assessment aid for patients with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) to perform their own joint counts in the context of typical clinical care; and while the purpose was ostensibly to validate an instrument, they also report their results. Patients at ages of those in this study (12–21 yrs) should be sufficiently mature to read and follow instructions and give answers at a level similar to adults. The patient assessments included a self-administered joint count based on a printed definition … Address correspondence to R.J. Burchette, 100 S. Los Robles Ave., 2nd Floor, Pasadena, California 91101, USA. E-mail: Raoul.J.Burchette{at}kp.org
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 | 0.012 | 0.089 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.023 | 0.026 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
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".