Disease Characteristics, Quality of Life, and Work Productivity by Enthesitis Site: Real-world Data From the US Corrona Psoriatic Arthritis/Spondyloarthritis Registry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective. To assess the effect of clinical enthesitis by body site in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA). Methods. Adults with PsA enrolled in the Corrona Psoriatic Arthritis/Spondyloarthritis Registry (March 2013–March 2018) were included. Enthesitis at enrollment was assessed by the Spondyloarthritis Research Consortium of Canada Enthesitis Index and classified by affected sites (upper, lower, or both). Disease activity (e.g., Clinical Disease Activity Index, Clinical Disease Activity Index for PsA), patient-reported outcomes (PRO; e.g., patient-reported pain and fatigue), and work productivity were compared between those with and without enthesitis usingt- or Wilcoxon rank-sum tests for continuous variables and chi-square or Fisher exact tests for categorical variables. The association of enthesitis with disease activity and PRO measures versus no enthesitis was modeled using multivariable-adjusted linear or logistic regression. Results. Of 2003 patients with PsA, 391 (19.5%) had enthesitis: 80 (20.5%) in upper sites only; 137 (35.0%) in lower sites only; and 174 (44.5%) in both. Regardless of location, disease activity and PRO were worse in patients with versus without enthesitis. In adjusted models, the presence of enthesitis at any site was significantly associated with worse disease activity versus no enthesitis. Enthesitis in lower or both upper and lower sites was associated with higher pain and fatigue scores and greater work impairment versus no enthesitis. Conclusion. Patients with clinical enthesitis had worse disease activity regardless of enthesitis location versus those without enthesitis, and patients with enthesitis in lower or both upper and lower sites had worse pain, fatigue, and work impairment.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".