Bibliographic record
Abstract
There has been an increasing focus on enthesitis in psoriatic arthritis (PsA). Enthesitis, defined as inflammation at the insertion of tendons and ligaments into bone, has been proposed as the primary pathological lesion of PsA, and this hypothesis has received support from animal models that have focused on the enthesis in spondyloarthropathy-like disease1,2. Enthesitis is part of the entry “stem” for the ClASsification for Psoriatic ARthritis criteria (CASPAR) criteria, although it must be emphasized that only a few cases of PsA had isolated entheseal involvement in that study3. Yet the clinical evaluation of enthesitis remains a vexing problem. When delivering educational symposia, I am often asked by dermatology and rheumatology colleagues how to assess and treat enthesitis. To the dermatologists I say look only at the Achilles insertion because (1) it is readily identifiable, (2) it is the major enthesis of the body, and (3) involvement is quite specific for spondyloarthropathy (SpA). I caution against misinterpreting a fusiform swelling of the Achilles tendon 5–10 cm proximal to the insertion as insertional tendinitis — Achilles paratendinitis is quite common and mostly unrelated to SpA. To the rheumatologist I give the same advice, but also advise using a simple enthesitis index for assessment, such as the Leeds enthesitis index, in which the patient is queried about pain when pressure is applied at each lateral epicondyle, medial femoral condyle, and Achilles tendon insertion. I warn about overinterpreting pure entheseal disease without arthritis for 2 reasons. First, there is a consistently … Address correspondence to Dr. P.S. Helliwell, Leeds Institute of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Medicine, University of Leeds, 2nd Floor, Chapel Allerton Hospital, Harehills Lane, Leeds LS7 4SA, UK. E-mail: P.Helliwell{at}leeds.ac.uk
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.003 |
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".