ASAS classification criteria for axial spondyloarthritis: a look at the unfilled part of the glass.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: A previous study found that time to diagnosis was significantly longer from onset of Raynaud's phenomenon for women compared to men with diffuse systemic sclerosis (SSc) and that, in limited SSc, it was more than twice as long for women than men. That study was limited, however, by the small number of men in disease subtype subgroups. The objective of the present study was to investigate the association of sex with time to diagnosis of SSc using a substantially larger patient sample. METHODS: Association between sex and time to diagnosis was assessed overall and stratified based on diffuse versus limited disease using Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS: There were 1,129 patients in the study (median age=56.0 years; 978 [86.6%] women). Time to diagnosis was significantly longer for women (median=1.1 years) than men (median 0.8= years; p=0.037) with diffuse SSc following onset of Raynaud's phenomenon. There were no significant or substantive sex differences in time to diagnosis after Raynaud's onset in limited SSc or from onset of first non-Raynaud's disease manifestation in diffuse or limited SSc. CONCLUSIONS: Time to diagnosis was significantly longer for women compared to men with diffuse SSc following onset of Raynaud's phenomenon, but the difference was small and unlikely to be clinically significant. There were no differences in time to diagnosis following Raynaud's onset in limited disease or following onset of first non-Raynaud's disease manifestation in diffuse or limited disease. Overall, sex does not appear to influence time to diagnosis meaningfully.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.003 |
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".