International spondyloarthritis interobserver reliability exercise--the INSPIRE study: I. Assessment of spinal measures.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the axial measures used in primary ankylosing spondylitis (AS) were reproducible for both AS and psoriatic arthritis (PsA) with axial disease. METHODS: A group of 20 rheumatologists from 11 countries with expertise in spondyloarthritis (SpA) met for a combined physical examination exercise to assess 10 patients with PsA with axial involvement (9 men, 1 woman, mean age 52 yrs, mean disease duration 17 yrs) and 9 AS patients (7 men, 2 women, mean age 38 yrs, mean disease duration 16 yrs). A modified Latin-square design was used. Measures included were occiput to wall, tragus to wall, cervical rotation, chest expansion, lateral spinal bending, modified Schober, and hip mobility. Data were analyzed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) adjusted for order of measurements. RESULTS: The majority of the variance was contributed by the patients. There was no order effect. Observer effect was noted especially for chest expansion for both AS and PsA patients, and for the modified Schober in PsA. The ICC demonstrated very good to excellent agreement for most measures for both AS and PsA. Chest expansion provided only moderate agreement for AS and PsA. CONCLUSION: Overall, measures of spinal mobility used in primary AS perform well with respect to interobserver reliability, and are equally reproducible when applied to PsA patients with axial involvement. Thus, these measures should now be evaluated in therapeutic trials of patients with PsA to determine sensitivity to change and concordance with other measures of structural damage.
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 | 0.023 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
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".