Psoriatic Arthritis Sonographic Enthesitis Instruments: A Systematic Review of the Literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: As part of the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis (GRAPPA) ultrasound working group, we performed a systematic review of the literature to assess the evidence and knowledge gaps in scoring instruments of enthesitis in psoriatic arthritis (PsA). METHODS: A systematic search of PubMed, EMBase, and Cochrane databases was performed. The search strategy was constructed to find original publications containing terms related to ultrasound, enthesitis, spondyloarthritis (SpA) or PsA. Data extraction focused on the properties of the sonographic enthesitis instruments used in each study following components of the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) filter: feasibility, test-retest reliability, construct validity as related to clinical assessment of enthesitis, biomarkers of inflammation and imaging of enthesitis by other modalities, discriminative validity, and responsiveness to treatment. RESULTS: Fifty-one of 310 identified manuscripts were included. Only 1 scoring instrument of enthesitis was specifically developed and validated in patients with PsA. Only 18 (35%) of the studies involved patients with PsA, while the remaining studies focused on SpA. In PsA, construct validity was assessed using biomarkers and clinical examination in 1 (2%) and 11 (21.5%) of the studies, respectively, whereas no studies used imaging for the same purpose. Only 2 (4%) of the studies assessed discriminative validity in PsA. Responsiveness to treatment was assessed in 7 studies, none of which included patients with PsA. CONCLUSION: Although sonographic enthesitis scoring instruments have been developed for SpA, only a few have been validated in PsA. None of them passed the OMERACT filter in patients with PsA. Additional research is required before endorsing a specific instrument for the assessment of enthesitis in patients with PsA.
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 | 0.017 | 0.055 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.024 | 0.019 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".