Comparison of clinical and immunogenetic features in familial versus sporadic psoriatic arthritis.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare patients with familial versus sporadic psoriatic arthritis (PsA) with respect to clinical, radiological and immunogenetic features. METHODS: All patients were identified from the University of Toronto Psoriatic Arthritis Clinic. Familial and sporadic PsA were distinguished based on the proband's self-reported history. The probands were compared at presentation to clinic with respect to: demographic information, age of onset of psoriasis and inflammatory arthritis, disease activity, disease damage, laboratory variables, functional class and HLA antigens. The two groups were compared using a univariate analysis. RESULTS: In total 407 patients were included. Thirty-six patients (8.8%) were eliminated as they reported a family history of arthritis in the absence of psoriasis. Of the remaining 371 patients, 150 patients reported a positive family of either PsA or psoriasis. 221 patients (54.2%) had no family history of psoriatic arthritis, psoriasis, or "arthritis". The familial group were younger at presentation to clinic (p = 0.003), had an earlier age of onset of psoriasis (p = 0.001) and inflammatory arthritis (p = 0.001) and were more likely to be receiving treatment (p = 0.001). The mean number of actively inflamed joints was higher in the sporadic group (p = 0.035), along with a higher frequency of rheumatoid factor positivity (p = 0.04). Only the age of onset variables and medication use retained significance after correction for multiple comparisons. CONCLUSIONS: In comparing probands with familial versus sporadic PsA, we noted a marked difference in the age of onset of psoriasis and inflammatory arthritis, along with other differences in several clinical variables. These differences may be helpful in identifying PsA patients with a stronger genetic predisposition.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".