Clinical Characteristics of Patients with Spondyloarthritis in Japan in Comparison with Other Regions of the World
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To delineate clinical characteristics of patients with spondyloarthritis (SpA) in Japan in comparison to other areas of the world. METHODS: Using the ASAS-COMOSPA (Assessment of Spondyloarthritis international Society-COMOrbidities in SPondyloArthritis) data, an international cross-sectional observational study of patients with SpA, we analyzed information on demographics, disease characteristics, comorbidities, and risk factors. Patients were classified by region: Japan, other Asian countries (China, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan), and non-Asian countries (Europe, the Americas, Africa). Patient characteristics, including diagnosis and treatment, were compared. RESULTS: Among 3984 patients included in the study, 161 were from centers in Japan, 933 from other Asian countries, and 2890 from other regions. Of patients with SpA in Japan, 42 (26.1%) had peripheral SpA, substantially more than in other countries. This trend was explained by the predominance of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) among Japanese patients with SpA. In contrast to the relatively low number in Japan, 54% of patients from other Asian countries had pure axial SpA (axSpA) without peripheral features. HLA-B27 testing, considered an integral part of the classification of axSpA, was performed in only 63.6% of Japanese patients with axSpA. More than half of Japanese patients with axSpA were classified using imaging criteria. CONCLUSION: In our study, there was a more substantial number of peripheral SpA cases observed in Japan compared to other parts of Asia and other regions of the world. Aside from ethnic differences, increasing recognition of PsA in Japan, as well as a potential underdiagnosis of axSpA due to the insufficient use of HLA-B27 testing, may partly explain regional discrepancies.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".