MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2520550460 · doi:10.3899/jrheum.151421

Toward Electronic Health Recording: Evaluation of Electronic Patient-reported Outcome Measures System for Remote Monitoring of Early Rheumatoid Arthritis

2016· article· en· W2520550460 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Yasser El Miedany, Maha El Gaafary, Sally Youssef, Sami Bahlas, S. Almedany, Ihab Ahmed, Deborah Palmer

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Rheumatology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRheumatoid Arthritis Research and Therapies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEuropean League Against RheumatismAin Shams UniversityBritish Society for Rheumatology
KeywordsMedicineRheumatoid arthritisPromPhysical therapyRheumatismClinical endpointRheumatologyInternal medicineRandomized controlled trialPatient-reported outcomeQuality of life (healthcare)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To assess the use of electronic patient-reported outcome measures (ePROM) in standard clinical practice for early rheumatoid arthritis (RA) management, the ePROM ability to enhance clinical care, and how computing technology can improve the patients' adherence to therapy. METHODS: In a double-blinded randomized-controlled study, 211 patients with early RA diagnosed according to American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism criteria completed a PROM in paper format at their first clinic visit. Patients were then randomized to Group 1, which completed an ePROM questionnaire monthly, or Group 2, which continued the standard paper PROM format. Over a 12-month period, Group 1 patients were assessed every 3 months in the clinic, whereas Group 2 patients were assessed in the clinic initially monthly for 6 months, then every 3 months. The primary endpoint was the equivalence of outcomes [Routine Assessment of Patient Index Data 3 (RAPID-3) and 28-joint Disease Activity Score (DAS28)] in both groups. The secondary endpoint was the patients' adherence to their medications. RESULTS: There was no significant difference between disease activity measures as well as DAS28 and RAPID-3 scores at 3, 6, and 12 months of management, although there was a trend toward lower patient-reported tender joint count and functional disability score in the active group versus the control group. The patients' adherence to antirheumatic therapy was significantly higher (p < 0.01) in the ePROM group, whereas stopping disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs for intolerability was significantly higher (p < 0.01) in the control group at 12 months of treatment. CONCLUSION: We found ePROM equivalent to standard paper PROM format. Further, it enabled the patients to personally monitor how they are doing regarding their disease activity and helped to optimize their adherence to their treatment.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.024
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.038
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.130

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0240.038
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.060
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.272 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations51
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of RheumatologySame topicRheumatoid Arthritis Research and TherapiesFrench-language works237,207