Comparison of the 2010 American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism and the 1987 American Rheumatism Association Classification Criteria for Rheumatoid Arthritis in an Early Arthritis Cohort in New Zealand
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the performance of the 2010 American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism (ACR/EULAR) criteria with the 1987 American Rheumatism Association (ARA) criteria for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in an early arthritis cohort. METHODS: The study included 79 patients with early arthritis (symptoms < 12 months) and a minimum of 1 year of followup between January 2004 and August 2010. Case notes were reviewed to determine which criteria were fulfilled at initial, 3-month, 1-year, and 2-year visits. Requirements for disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) therapy and presence of joint erosions were compared at 2 years. RESULTS: At the initial visit, twice as many patients fulfilled the 2010 criteria (67%) compared with the 1987 criteria (34%; p < 0.001). Forty-four percent of patients who fulfilled only the 2010 criteria at the initial visit went on to fulfill both 1987 and 2010 criteria at 3 months (p < 0.001). Eight patients did not meet the 1987 RA criteria solely because of short symptom duration. All 17/79 patients who developed joint erosions went on to eventually fulfill both criteria. Of those patients who fulfilled only the 2010 criteria at baseline, 25/27 (93%) ultimately received DMARD therapy compared with 24/26 (92%) of those fulfilling both 1987 and 2010 criteria. CONCLUSION: The 2010 ACR/EULAR RA criteria allowed earlier RA classification compared to the 1987 ARA criteria, although both criteria were equivalent in predicting joint erosions and subsequent need for DMARD (Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ANZCTR 12608000292370).
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".