A quarter of patients time their early rheumatoid arthritis onset differently than physicians
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Early rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treatment requires timely recognition. This large, multicentre study compared patient-reported vs physician-reported onset of early RA. Methods: Patients from the Canadian Early ArThritis CoHort with early/suspected RA (persistent synovitis <1 year) completed questionnaires asking about the date of symptom onset; and rheumatologists date of onset for persistent synovitis. Groups with similar reported timing (patient and physician) versus differing timing of 30 days or more were compared. Results: In 2683 patients, the median patient symptom duration (IQR) was 178 days (163) and physician-reported duration was 166 (138). 1940 (72%) patients had similar patient-reported and physician-reported onset (<30 days), whereas 497 (18%) reported onset 30 or more days preceding physicians, and 246 (9%) 30 or more days after physicians. Patients reporting onset preceding physicians had lower baseline Disease Activity Score based on 28 joint count, swollen joint counts and erythrocyte sedimentation rate (p<0.05). Patients reporting onset after physicians were more likely to be rheumatoid factor positive (p<0.001) and had higher anticitrullinated protein antibody titres (p<0.009). Regression showed low income, smoking, fibromyalgia, osteoarthritis and baseline non-methotrexate non-biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drug use were predictors for longer patient-reported symptoms. At 12 months, patients reporting longer symptom duration than physicians had lower rates of Simplified Disease Activity Index remission and higher physician global assessments. Conclusion: Over one-fourth of patients reported differences of >1 month in symptom onset from their rheumatologist. Patients with longer symptom durations had less improvement at 1 year, which may be reflective of comorbid musculoskeletal conditions.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.004 | 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".