A Simplified Baseline Prediction Model for Joint Damage Progression in Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Step toward Personalized Medicine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the performance of an extended model and a simplified prognostic model for joint damage in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) based on 3 baseline risk factors: anticyclic citrullinated peptide antibodies (anti-CCP), erosions, and acute-phase reaction. METHODS: Data were used from the Nijmegen early RA cohort. An extended model and a simplified baseline prediction model were developed to predict joint damage progression between 0 and 3 years. Joint damage progression was assessed using the Ratingen score. In the extended model, prediction factors were positivity for anti-CCP and/or rheumatoid factor, the level of erythrocyte sedimentation rate, and the quantity of erosions. The prediction score was calculated as the sum of the regression coefficients. In the simplified model, the prediction factors were dichotomized and the number of risk factors was counted. Performances of both models were compared using discrimination and calibration. The models were internally validated using bootstrapping. RESULTS: The extended model resulted in a prediction score between 0 and 5.6 with an area under the receiver-operation characteristic (ROC) curve of 0.77 (95% CI 0.72-0.81). The simplified model resulted in a prediction score between 0 and 3. This model had an area under the ROC curve of 0.75 (95% CI 0.70-0.80). In internal validation, the 2 models showed reasonably well the agreement between observed and predicted probabilities for joint damage progression (Hosmer-Lemeshow test p > 0.05 and calibration slope near 1.0). CONCLUSION: A simple prediction model for joint damage progression in early RA, by only counting the number of risk factors, has adequate performance. This facilitates the translation of the theoretical prognostic models to daily clinical practice.
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 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".