MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2118533896 · doi:10.1111/bjd.12190

Comparison of three screening tools to detect psoriatic arthritis in patients with psoriasis (CONTEST study)

2013· article· en· W2118533896 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Laura C. Coates, Tariq Aslam, Farida Al Balushi, A. David Burden, E. Burden-The, A.R. Caperon, R. Cerio, C. Chattopadhyay, Hector Chinoy, Mark Goodfield, Lesley Kay, S. Kelly, Bruce Kirkham, C. R. Lovell, Helena Marzo‐Ortega, Neil McHugh, Ruth Murphy, Nick J. Reynolds, Catherine Smith, Elizabeth J. C. Stewart, Richard B. Warren, Robin Waxman, Hilary Wilson, Philip Helliwell

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Dermatology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpondyloarthritis Studies and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of NottinghamNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchPfizer
KeywordsMedicinePsoriatic arthritisPsoriasisReceiver operating characteristicDermatologyInternal medicineEpidemiologyGold standard (test)ArthritisPhysical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Multiple questionnaires to screen for psoriatic arthritis (PsA) have been developed but the optimal screening questionnaire is unknown. OBJECTIVES: To compare three PsA screening questionnaires in a head-to-head study using CASPAR (the Classification Criteria for Psoriatic Arthritis) as the gold standard. METHODS: This study recruited from 10 U.K. secondary care dermatology clinics. Patients with a diagnosis of psoriasis, not previously diagnosed with PsA, were given all three questionnaires. All patients who were positive on any questionnaire were invited for a rheumatological assessment. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were used to compare the sensitivity, specificity and area under the curve of the three questionnaires according to CASPAR criteria. RESULTS: In total, 938 patients with psoriasis were invited to participate and 657 (70%) patients returned the questionnaires. One or more questionnaires were positive in 314 patients (48%) and 195 (62%) of these patients attended for assessment. Of these, 47 patients (24%) were diagnosed with PsA according to the CASPAR criteria. The proportion of patients with PsA increased with the number of positive questionnaires (one questionnaire, 19·1%; two, 34·0%; three, 46·8%). Sensitivities and specificities for the three questionnaires, and areas under the ROC curve were, respectively: Psoriatic Arthritis Screening Evaluation (PASE), 74·5%, 38·5%, 0·594; Psoriasis Epidemiology Screening Tool (PEST), 76·6%, 37·2%, 0·610; Toronto Psoriatic Arthritis Screen (ToPAS), 76·6%, 29·7%, 0·554. The majority of patients with a false positive response had degenerative or osteoarthritis. CONCLUSION: Although the PEST and ToPAS questionnaires performed slightly better than the PASE questionnaire at identifying PsA, there is little difference between these instruments. These screening tools identify many cases of musculoskeletal disease other than PsA.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.253 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations163
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of DermatologySame topicSpondyloarthritis Studies and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207