Psoriatic Nail Dystrophy Is Associated with Erosive Disease in the Distal Interphalangeal Joints in Psoriatic Arthritis: A Retrospective Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess whether the association between psoriatic nail dystrophy and radiographic damage in the hands of patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is specific to the distal interphalangeal (DIP) joints. METHODS: A convenience sample of patients was collated from the Bath longitudinal PsA cohort. All patients had PsA according to the ClASsification for Psoriatic ARthritis criteria (CASPAR) criteria, scored radiographs of their hands, and documented nail scores as measured by the Psoriatic Nail Severity Score. Chi-square tests were performed to examine for association between features of nail dystrophy and radiographic damage in the DIP joints, and proximal interphalangeal or metacarpophalangeal (non-DIP) joints of the corresponding digits. RESULTS: There were 134 patients included, with a median age of 53 years (interquartile range; IQR 44-61) and disease duration of 7 years (IQR 3-17). The presence of any form of psoriatic nail dystrophy was associated with erosion at the DIP joints of the corresponding digit (OR 1.9, 95% CI 1.23-2.83; p < 0.004) and this association was primarily driven by the presence of nail onycholysis (OR 1.72; 95% CI 1.12-2.62; p = 0.02). Nail subungual hyperkeratosis was more strongly associated with joint space narrowing, erosions, and osteoproliferation at the corresponding DIP joint compared to non-DIP joints (p < 0.001). Nail pitting was not associated with erosions or osteoproliferation. CONCLUSION: The presence of psoriatic nail dystrophy, particularly onycholysis, is associated with erosive disease at the DIP joints. Subungual hyperkeratosis is more strongly associated with erosive damage at the DIP than non-DIP joints. These findings support the anatomical and pathological link between nail and DIP joint disease.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".