The Association of AUSCAN and PRWHE Patient-reported Outcome Measures With Radiographic Progression of Early Thumb Carpometacarpal Arthritis at 36-Month Follow-up Is Limited to Subtle Changes in the Pain Subscale
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is a paucity of literature that examines how patient-reported outcomes correspond to early radiographic progression of thumb carpometacarpal (CMC) osteoarthritis (OA). This study examines how Australian/Canadian Osteoarthritis Hand Index (AUSCAN) and Patient-Rated Hand and Wrist Evaluation (PRWHE) scores change over 36 months in subjects with early CMC OA. METHODS: Ninety-one subjects with symptomatic early thumb CMC OA were enrolled. Differences in AUSCAN and PRWHE scores were measured between subjects at baseline and at 18-month follow-up, and between the subjects at baseline and at 36-month follow-up. Radiographic progression was defined as an increase in modified Eaton Stage. Differences in AUSCAN and PRWHE scores were compared between these 2 groups in order to determine if radiographic progression was associated with a greater change in AUSCAN and PRWHE at 18- and 36-month follow-up. RESULTS: At 18- and 36-month follow-up visits, there were no significant differences in AUSCAN or PRWHE compared to baseline. Multivariable logistic regression analysis did not reveal any significant differences between subjects with radiographic progression to subjects without radiographic progression at 18-month follow-up. At 36-month follow-up, this analysis did demonstrate that subjects with evidence of radiographic progression had a significant increase in the PRWHE pain subscale. CONCLUSION: AUSCAN and PRWHE scores were not found to significantly progress at 18-month and 36-month follow-up. However, when comparing the subset of subjects with and without radiographic OA, subjects with early CMC OA who had 1 stage of radiographic progression were found to have a significantly higher intensity of pain on the PRWHE pain subscale at 36-month follow-up.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".