Patient perspective: fatigue as a recommended patient centered outcome measure in rheumatoid arthritis.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Patient Perspective Workshop at OMERACT 8 considered evidence for the importance of fatigue to patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and whether measurement of fatigue meets the requirements of the OMERACT filter. The workshop participants included 20 patients from 10 countries and 60 other OMERACT participants. Introductory papers and detailed notes for discussion group members set out the evidence from the literature and from recent analyses of clinical study data available to several participants. The workshop concluded that fatigue is a symptom that is important to patients, is commonly reported by patients, is often severe, can be measured by several current instruments that pass the OMERACT filter, is responsive to some interventions, and provides information additional to that commonly obtained from currently used outcomes. The final OMERACT plenary session endorsed by a very large majority (89%) the proposal that, in addition to the "core set" of outcome measures currently in widespread use, fatigue should be measured in future studies of RA whenever possible.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 teacher head, 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".