Evaluation of revised International League of Associations for Rheumatology classification criteria for juvenile idiopathic arthritis in Spanish children (Edmonton 2001).
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the revised (Edmonton 2001) International League of Associations for Rheumatology (ILAR) classification criteria for Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis (JIA) in a cohort of Spanish children. METHODS: One hundred twenty-five patients with chronic arthritis categorized according to traditional criteria and to the first revision of ILAR JIA criteria (Durban 1997) were reclassified according to the second JIA criteria revision (Edmonton 2001). RESULTS: Edmonton criteria allocated 92% of the patients classified by traditional criteria in their corresponding ILAR categories. Most patients with systemic (94%), pauciarticular (91%) and polyarticular (88%) juvenile chronic arthritis as well as those with juvenile spondyloarthropathy (94%) were reclassified in the corresponding ILAR categories. Two children with probable psoriatic arthritis (PsA) were reclassified in the rheumatoid factor-negative (RF-) polyarthritis category, whereas only one of 2 children with definite PsA could be allocated to the ILAR PsA class. Ten patients (8%) constituted the undifferentiated arthritis group, 8 because of psoriasis in a first-degree relative, one because of the presence of RF in a girl with oligoarthritis, and another because of psoriasis in a boy who was HLA-B27-positive. In comparison with the Durban JIA criteria the Edmonton revision decreased the number of patients whose arthritis fulfilled criteria in no category or in 2 or more categories (from 19 to 10), and delineated better the population included in the RF- polyarthritis category. CONCLUSION: The Edmonton criteria made the ILAR classification more transparent and easy to apply. Family history of psoriasis was responsible for most allocations to the undifferentiated arthritis category (8/10).
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 | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".