Very Low Disease Activity, DAPSA Remission, and Impact of Disease in a Spanish Population with Psoriatic Arthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine the grade of agreement between very low disease activity (VLDA) and Disease Activity Index for Psoriatic Arthritis (DAPSA) remission, as well as their association with the effect of the disease as assessed by the Psoriatic Arthritis Impact of Disease (PsAID) questionnaire in patients with psoriatic arthritis in routine clinical practice. METHODS: Posthoc analysis of data from a cross-sectional multicenter study. Patients were included who fulfilled the Classification for Psoriatic Arthritis (CASPAR) criteria with at least 1 year of disease duration and were treated with biological and/or conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs according to routine clinical practice in Spain. Patients were considered in VLDA if they met 7/7 of the minimal disease activity criteria. DAPSA and clinical (c)DAPSA score ≤ 4 identified remissions. RESULTS: Of the 227 patients included in the original study, 26 (11.5%), 52 (22.9%), and 65 (28.6%) were in VLDA, DAPSA remission, and cDAPSA remission, respectively. There was a moderate agreement between VLDA and DAPSA remission (κ = 0.52) or cDAPSA remission (κ = 0.42). Patients with VLDA had less effect of the disease as measured by PsAID [mean total score (SD): VLDA 1.1 (1.2); DAPSA remission 1.3 (1.5); cDAPSA remission 1.7 (1.6)]. There was a moderate agreement between DAPSA remission or cDAPSA remission and PsAID < 4 (κ = 0.46 and κ = 0.58 respectively), while poor agreement (κ = 0.18) was found between VLDA and PsAID < 4. CONCLUSION: VLDA criteria seem to be more stringent for assessing a status of remission; however, DAPSA remission shows better correlation with a patient-acceptable symptoms state than VLDA does.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".