Case-control Study on Dactylitis, Enthesitis, and Anterior Uveitis in Spondyloarthritis Associated with Inflammatory Bowel Diseases: Role of Coexistent Psoriasis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the frequency of dactylitis, enthesitis, and anterior uveitis (AU) in spondyloarthritis (SpA) associated with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD-SpA) compared with other SpA, and to assess the role of associated psoriasis in the occurrence of dactylitis and enthesitis. METHODS: In a 12-month case-control study, the frequency of dactylitis and enthesitis in 29 patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) and 59 with Crohn disease (CD) who satisfied the Spondyloarthritis international Society criteria for axial or peripheral SpA was compared with 176 controls, including 97 (55.1%) with psoriatic arthritis (PsA), 47 (26.7%) with ankylosing spondylitis (AS), and 32 (18.2%) with nonradiographic axial SpA (nr-axSpA). The occurrence of these features in IBD-SpA with and without psoriasis was also evaluated. RESULTS: Axial, peripheral, or mixed involvement was observed in 46 (52%), 29 (33%), and 13 (15%) patients, respectively; and 14/88 (16%) had psoriasis. Dactylitis was recorded in 4/88 patients (4.5%) with IBD-SpA and in 30 controls (17.4%; p = 0.008), enthesitis in 16 cases (18.1%) and in 78/176 controls (44.3%; p < 0.001), and AU in 3 patients (3.4%) with IBD-SpA and in 26 controls (14.7%; p = 0.01). No significant differences were found between patients with UC-SpA and those with CD-SpA. Dactylitis and enthesitis were significantly more common in patients with IBD-SpA who also had psoriasis compared to those without skin disease (p = 0.009 and 0.003, respectively). CONCLUSION: Dactylitis, enthesitis, and AU are significantly less frequent in IBD-SpA compared with other types of SpA. Given the frequent association of psoriasis and IBD, overlooking coexistent skin disease may lead to overestimating the frequency of these features.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".