MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2169583118 · doi:10.3899/jrheum.100890

Current Controversies in Spondyloarthritis: SPARTAN

2010· article· en· W2169583118 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Michael H. Weisman, Thomas J. Learch, Xenofon Baraliakos, Vinod Chandran, Dafna D. Gladman, S. P. Raychaudhuri, Huji Xu, Eduardo Collantes‐Estévez, Janitzia Vázquez‐Mellado, Philip J. Mease, Joachim Sieper, Atul Deodhar, Robert A. Colbert, Daniel O. Clegg

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Rheumatology · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpondyloarthritis Studies and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAnkylosing spondylitisHelpfulnessEpidemiologyAxial spondyloarthritisFamily medicinePhysical therapyPathologySurgerySacroiliitis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Spondyloarthritis Research and Therapy Network (SPARTAN), founded in 2003 to promote research, education, and treatment of ankylosing spondylitis (AS) and related forms of spondyloarthritis (SpA), held its 7th Annual Research and Education Meeting in July 2009 in Houston, Texas. Current controversies in SpA discussed during the meeting included an update on the epidemiology of AS, axial SpA, and inflammatory back pain; the adequacy of the mSASS to assess radiographic involvement; the helpfulness of magnetic resonance imaging in assessing disease progression; the reliability of metrology in assessing damage; and whether biologic agents alter the course of AS. Presentations also were made on psoriasis in the SCID mouse model; the challenges and opportunities of SpA in China; a discussion of the special needs in managing SpA in Ibero-America, and the SPARK Survey in Europe and North America.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.028
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.069

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.028
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0050.010
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0080.014
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.263 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Rheumatology→Same topicSpondyloarthritis Studies and Treatments→French-language works237,207→