Development of the American College of Rheumatology's Rheumatoid Arthritis Electronic Clinical Quality Measures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Electronic clinical quality measures (eCQMs) rely on computer algorithms to extract data from electronic health records (EHRs). On behalf of the American College of Rheumatology (ACR), we sought to develop and test eCQMs for rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: Drawing from published ACR guidelines, a working group developed candidate RA process measures and subsequently assessed face validity through an interdisciplinary panel of health care stakeholders. A public comment period followed. Measures that passed these levels of review were electronically specified using the quality data model, which provides standard nomenclature for data elements (category, datatype, and value sets) obtained through an EHR. For each eCQM, 3 clinical sites using different EHR systems tested the scientific feasibility and validity of measures. Measures appropriate for accountability were presented for national endorsement. RESULTS: Expert panel validity ratings were high for all measures (median 8-9 of 9). Health system performance on the eCQMs was 53.6% for RA disease activity assessment, 69.1% for functional status assessment, 93.1% for disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) use, and 72.8% for tuberculosis screening. Kappa statistics, which evaluated whether the eCQM validly captured data obtained from manual EHR chart review, demonstrated moderate to substantial agreement (0.54 for functional status assessment, 0.73 for tuberculosis screening, 0.84 for disease activity, and 0.85 for DMARD use). CONCLUSION: Four eCQMs for RA have achieved national endorsement and are recommended for use in federal quality reporting programs. Implementation and further refinement of these measures is ongoing in the ACR's registry, the Rheumatology Informatics System for Effectiveness (RISE).
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 | 0.121 | 0.135 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".