Physician scores vs patient self-report of joint and skin manifestations in psoriatic arthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We aimed to determine the degree of agreement between patient self-report and physician assessment of joint disease activity and damage and degree of skin disease. METHODS: Patients were followed up in the PsA clinic for homunculus for tender joints, swollen joints, deformed joints and problematic joints, as well as the severity of their psoriasis. A rheumatologist documented tender joints, swollen joints and damaged joints as well as psoriasis area and severity index score. The scores were compared using the concordance correlation coefficient and Bland-Altman plots were constructed. RESULTS: One hundred and forty outpatients participated in the study (60 females and 80 males) with a mean age of 52.8 years. Their mean age at onset of psoriasis was 27.4 years and at PsA onset was 36.9 years. The average duration of psoriasis at the time of the study was 25.3 years and of PsA was 16.2 years. The correlation between patient and physician scores was poor for tender and swollen joints, although it was better for deformed joints and psoriasis area and severity index score but still did not reach a level of good agreement. CONCLUSION: PsA patient's self-report has a poor correlation with physician assessment. Thus patient self-reported data are insufficient to accurately monitor PsA disease activity when compared with a physician's joint examination and skin score. Expert physical examination should remain the gold standard for the assessment of actively inflamed joint and skin disease in patients with PsA in both clinical trials and observational cohort studies.
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 | 0.008 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".