Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis/Outcome Measures in Rheumatology Consensus‐Based Recommendations and Research Agenda for Use of Composite Measures and Treatment Targets in Psoriatic Arthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: A meeting was convened by the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis (GRAPPA) and Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) to further the development of consensus among physicians and patients regarding composite disease activity measures and targets in psoriatic arthritis (PsA). METHODS: Prior to the meeting, physicians and patients completed surveys on outcome measures. A consensus meeting of 26 rheumatologists, dermatologists, and patient research partners reviewed evidence on composite measures and potential treatment targets plus results of the surveys. The meeting consisted of plenary presentations, breakout sessions, and group discussions. International experts including members of GRAPPA and OMERACT were invited to the meeting, including the developers of all of the measures discussed. After discussions, participants voted on proposals for use, and consensus was established in a second survey. RESULTS: Survey results from 128 health care professionals and 139 patients were analyzed alongside a systematic literature review summarizing evidence. A weighted vote was cast for composite measures. For randomized controlled trials, the most popular measures were the PsA disease activity score (40 votes) and the GRAPPA composite index (28 votes). For clinical practice, the most popular measures were an average of scores on 3 visual analog scales (45 votes) and the disease activity in PsA score (26 votes). After discussion, there was no consensus on a composite measure. The group agreed that several composite measures could be used and that future studies should allow further validation and comparison. The group unanimously agreed that remission should be the ideal target, with minimal disease activity (MDA)/low disease activity as a feasible alternative. The target should include assessment of musculoskeletal disease, skin disease, and health-related quality of life. The group recommended a treatment target of very low disease activity (VLDA) or MDA. CONCLUSION: Consensus was not reached on a continuous measure of disease activity. In the interim, the group recommended several composites. Consensus was reached on a treatment target of VLDA/MDA. An extensive research agenda was composed and recommends that data on all PsA clinical domains be collected in ongoing studies.
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 | 0.412 | 0.323 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.015 | 0.015 |
| Research integrity | 0.020 | 0.021 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.012 |
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".