Comparative Analysis of Disease Activity Measures, Use of Biologic Agents, Body Mass Index, Radiographic Features, and Bone Density in Psoriatic Arthritis and Rheumatoid Arthritis Patients Followed in a Large U.S. Disease Registry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare disease activity, radiographic features, and bone density in psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and rheumatoid arthritis (RA) matched cohorts. METHODS: Disease activity and radiographic data in the Consortium of Rheumatology Researchers of North America database from 2001 to 2008 were compared for 2481 patients with PsA and 17,107 patients with RA subsequently matched for age, gender, and disease duration. Radiographic outcomes included presence of erosions, and joint deformity. In addition, bone mineral density (BMD) scores for lumbar spine (L-spine) and femoral neck were compared using the same matching criteria plus weight and smoking status. RESULTS: Tender (4.5 vs 3.4, p < 0.001) and swollen (4.4 vs 2.9, p < 0.012) joint counts, and modified Health Assessment Questionnaire scores were significantly higher (0.4 vs 0.3, p < 0.001) in patients with RA compared with patients with PsA. Patient general health and pain scores were also higher in patients with RA vs patients with PsA. Joint erosions (47.4% vs 37.6%, p = 0.020) and deformity (25.2% vs 21.6%, p = 0.021) were more prevalent in RA than PsA. In multivariate analysis, a reduced prevalence of erosions in PsA vs RA was noted (OR 0.609, p < 0.001). After matching, T-scores for L-spine (-0.54 vs -0.36, p = 0.077) and femoral neck (-0.88 vs -0.93, p = 0.643) were similar in patients with RA and patients with PsA, although body weight was a major confounder. CONCLUSION: The level of disease activity and radiographic damage was significantly higher for RA vs PsA subjects, although the magnitude of differences was relatively small. BMD levels were comparable between cohorts. Outcomes in patients with PsA and patients with RA may be more similar than previously reported.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 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".