Is a Patient Questionnaire Without a Joint Examination as Undesirable as a Joint Examination Without a Patient Questionnaire?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Patient questionnaires have gained increasing prominence in the treatment of rheumatic diseases over the last few decades. Three patient self-report scores for physical function, pain, and patient global estimate are included in the rheumatoid arthritis (RA) core dataset1. These 3 scores distinguish active from control treatments in RA clinical trials involving leflunomide2, methotrexate2, anakinra3, adalimumab4, abatacept5, and certolizumab6, at levels of significance similar to formal joint counts or laboratory tests. Patient physical function scores generally are more significant than radiographic scores or laboratory test results in the prognosis of severe longterm RA outcomes such as work disability and premature mortality7,8,9,10. Routine Assessment of Patient Index Data (RAPID3), an index of only the 3 patient-reported RA Core Data Set measures, is correlated significantly with standard indices that require a formal joint count, such as DAS28 (28-joint Disease Activity Score) and CDAI (Clinical Disease Activity Index)11,12. A RAPID3 score of ≤ 3/30 with 1 or 0 swollen joints, RAPID3≤3+≤SJ1, provides remission criteria comparable to Boolean13, SDAI (Simplified Disease Activity Index), CDAI, and DAS2814 criteria in far less time than a formal joint count, in studies of the French ESPOIR early arthritis cohort15 … Address correspondence to Dr. Pincus, Division of Rheumatology, NYU Hospital for Joint Diseases, 301 East 17th St., Room 1608, New York, New York 10003, USA. E-mail: tedpincus{at}gmail.com
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 | 0.059 | 0.140 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.007 |
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".