Characterization of Patients With Axial Spondyloarthritis by Enthesitis Presence: Data from the Corrona Psoriatic Arthritis/Spondyloarthritis Registry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To compare the characteristics of patients with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) who had enthesitis versus those without enthesitis. Methods This study included adult patients with axSpA enrolled in the Corrona Psoriatic Arthritis/Spondyloarthritis Registry (March 2013 to August 2018). Enthesitis was assessed at enrollment via the Spondyloarthritis Research Consortium of Canada Enthesitis Index. Characteristics were compared between patients with and without enthesitis using t tests or Wilcoxon rank‐sum tests for continuous variables and χ2 or Fisher exact tests for categorical variables. Results Of 477 patients with axSpA, 121 (25.4%) had enthesitis (mean, 3.9 sites) at enrollment. Higher proportions of patients with enthesitis were female and had nonradiographic axSpA than those without enthesitis (both P < 0.05). Additionally, higher proportions of patients with enthesitis had prior biologic (38.8% vs 27.2%) and conventional synthetic disease‐modifying antirheumatic drug (csDMARD; 24.8% vs 13.3%) use and were currently receiving a combination of biologics and csDMARDs (28.6% vs 18.1%) than those without enthesitis. Patients with enthesitis had worse disease activity (tender and swollen joint counts, physician global assessment, Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score, Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index, and Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index), spinal mobility, and quality of life (pain, fatigue, Health Assessment Questionnaire, and EuroQol visual analog scale scores); greater work impairment; and had a history of depression and fibromyalgia than those without enthesitis (all P < 0.05). Conclusion In this US‐based real‐world study, enthesitis in patients with axSpA was associated with worse disease activity and quality of life than those with no enthesitis.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".