Objective Evaluation of Physical Functioning after Tumor Necrosis Factor Inhibitory Therapy in Patients with Ankylosing Spondylitis: A Selection of 3 Feasible Performance-based Tests
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: (1) To select a limited number of performance-based tests that are reliable, show improvement in physical functioning after tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) therapy in patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS), and generate information equivalent to the full set of tests, and (2) are feasible for use in daily clinical practice. METHODS: Eight performance-based tests were evaluated. To eliminate redundant testing, the tests that showed adequate reliability, the highest standardized response mean (SRM), and the largest proportion of patients with an improved performance-based physical functioning were selected. The selected tests were combined into a new criterion for improvement in physical functioning (AS Performance-based Improvement; ASPI). The number and percentage of improved patients identified with the ASPI and identified with the full set of performance tests were compared. RESULTS: Reliability for all tests was adequate to excellent (ICC 0.73-0.96). The tests for bending, putting on socks, and getting up from the floor had the highest SRM (0.52-0.74) and showed the largest proportion of improved patients after TNFi therapy. The combination of these 3 tests was feasible in daily clinical practice and showed improved physical functioning after TNFi therapy in 67% of the patients. CONCLUSION: The 3 selected tests are recommended for use in daily practice because they generate information comparable to the full set. They are reliable and feasible, and the combination of these tests showed improved physical functioning after TNFi therapy in 67% of the patients. Evaluation of physical functioning might be improved by adding these tests to other AS outcome measures.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".