Assessment of Widespread and Extraarticular Pain in Psoriatic Arthritis: A Case-control Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: A remarkable lack of detailed knowledge on pain areas in psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is present, and their clinical relevance is quite unknown. The main aim of the study was to explore pain areas in PsA, comparing them with those involved in patients with fibromyalgia (FM). In addition, a secondary aim was to investigate any possible association between pain areas and outcome measures in PsA. METHODS: This was a case-control study on patients with PsA satisfying Classification Criteria for Psoriatic Arthritis criteria and patients with FM. In all patients with PsA and FM, a body chart filled in by the patient reporting pain areas in 80 body locations was performed. The Widespread Pain Index (WPI) was performed in all patients with PsA and FM. In all patients with PsA, an assessment of disease activity, treatment target, function, and impact of disease was carried out. RESULTS: Fifty patients with PsA and 50 FM controls were evaluated. A significantly higher number of pain areas in the body chart and higher WPI scores were found in patients with FM when compared to patients with PsA. In PsA, the number of areas reported in the body chart significantly correlated with the Disease Activity Index for PsA, Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index, and PsA Impact of Disease. Patients who showed a significantly high number of extraarticular pain areas involved were those who were not in remission/minimal disease activity, or who did not have a greater impact of disease or reduced function. CONCLUSION: The main results showed that widespread and extraarticular pain was present in patients with PsA, showing that this nonarticular pain had an impact on important disease domains. The present study could contribute to an important aspect of this challenging and multifaceted disease-namely, the assessment of widespread pain.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".