Comparison of Patients with Juvenile Psoriatic Arthritis and Nonpsoriatic Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis: How Different Are They?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical features and outcome between patients with juvenile psoriatic arthritis (JPsA) and non-JPsA juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA). METHODS: Fifty-three children with JPsA, 32 with < 5 joints in the first 6 months of disease (oligo-JPsA) and 21 (> or = 5 joints) polyarticular-onset (poly-JPsA) were compared to 53 patients with JIA who were matched by sex, age, date of diagnosis, and articular onset pattern. RESULTS: There was no difference in the percentage of patients between the oligoarticular groups who developed extended oligoarthritis or in the percentage of patients who were positive for antinuclear antibodies. The only differences were that 25% of patients with oligo-JPsA had dactylitis compared to 0% of patients with oligo-JIA (p < 0.01) and 50% had nail pitting as compared to 18.7% (p < 0.05). In polyarticular patients the percentages with dactylitis were similar (19% vs 38%; p = 0.25). The frequency of uveitis was identical in the oligoarticular patients but a higher rate was seen in poly-JPsA compared to poly-JIA (23.8% vs 0%; p = 0.02), while contractures were more frequent in poly-JIA compared to poly-JPsA during the course of the illness (47.6% vs 14.3%; p = 0.03) but not at last followup (14.3% vs 4.7%; p = 0.6). At last followup the mean Childhood Health Assessment Questionnaire scores were similar in both the polyarticular and oligoarticular groups. CONCLUSION: There were only a few differences between patients with JPsA and JIA regarding disease onset, disease course, and outcome. We suggest that large, longterm prospective studies are required to accurately determine whether subdividing JIA according to psoriasis is worthwhile.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".