Psoriatic Arthritis in Canadian Clinical Practice: The PsA Assessment in Rheumatology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We aimed to determine disease severity and treatment of patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) in rheumatology practices in Canada through the PsA Assessment in Rheumatology (PAIR) study. METHODS: Rheumatologists who were members of the Canadian Rheumatology Association were asked to complete a form for each patient addressing demographic questions, history, clinical examination, and patient-reported outcomes. Results were compared with a cohort seen in a PsA clinic during the same period. RESULTS: From across Canada, 22 rheumatologists from 5 provinces submitted information about 233 consecutive patients with PsA [145 men (62.2%), 88 women (37.8%), mean age 53.2 yrs (±12.7), 88.4% disease duration>2 yrs]. A majority (80.7%) fulfilled ClASsification for Psoriatic ARthritis (CASPAR) criteria, and 30% had taken no disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. Clinical joint damage was documented in 60% of the patients, active skin disease in 70%, and nail lesions in 32%. Only 22% were rated as having moderate to high disease activity, while 52% were rated as low disease activity and 26% were deemed in remission. The decision was based on joint counts, patient global assessment, physician global assessment, and acute-phase reactants. Twenty-seven percent of the patients were to have their medications changed based on the current visit, the majority for inadequate response to medications. Patients in the PAIR cohort had more inflamed joints but similar damage to those in the PsA clinic. CONCLUSION: Patients with PsA seen in regular rheumatology practice fulfill CASPAR criteria, have active disease, and more than half have joint damage. The majority have low activity or are in remission.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".