Performance of the Assessment in Spondyloarthritis International Society Classification for Axial and Peripheral Spondyloarthritis in an Established Clinical Cohort: Comparison with Criteria Sets of Amor and the European Spondylarthropathy Study Group
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the performance of the Assessment in Spondyloarthritis International Society (ASAS) criteria (axial or peripheral) against the Amor and European Spondylarthropathy Study Group criteria in established spondyloarthritis (SpA). METHODS: Rheumatologist-diagnosed patients with SpA were retrospectively classified according to the different criteria sets. Clinical characteristics of patients fulfilling all 3 criteria were compared with those who did not, by nonparametric statistics. RESULTS: ASAS classified 90% of the 231 patients, with 169 (73%) fulfilling all 3 criteria sets. Multivariate analysis showed the 62 patients not fulfilling all criteria sets were older at symptom onset (p < 0.001) and less likely to have inflammatory back pain (p < 0.001), peripheral arthritis (p < 0.001), or elevated C-reactive protein levels (p = 0.034). CONCLUSION: ASAS criteria can be used in established disease.
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 | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".