Evaluation and Validation of a Patient-completed Psoriatic Arthritis Flare Questionnaire
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Evaluation of a psoriatic arthritis (PsA), multidimensional, patient-completed disease flare questionnaire (FLARE). METHODS: The FLARE questionnaire was administered to 139 patients in a prospective observational study. The "gold standard" of flare was based on patient opinion. Test-retest reliability was evaluated by intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Disease activity was measured by the Psoriatic Arthritis Disease Activity Score (PASDAS), Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and PsA (GRAPPA) Composite Exercise (GRACE), Composite Psoriatic Disease Activity Index (CPDAI), and Disease Activity Index for Psoriatic Arthritis (DAPSA). RESULTS: The most common symptoms of a PsA flare were musculoskeletal, followed by fatigue, frustration, loss of function, and an increase in cutaneous symptoms. The test-retest ICC for the FLARE questionnaire was 0.87 (95% CI 0.72-0.94). The optimum cut-off to identify a flare of disease was 4/10 (sensitivity 0.82, specificity 0.76; area under the curve 0.85). For those patients scoring ≥ 4, the mean score for the composite measures was as follows (score for those not reporting a flare in parentheses): PASDAS 5.3 ± 1.3 (3.1 ± 1.6); GRACE 4.5 ± 1.2 (2.2 ± 1.4); CPDAI 8.9 ± 2.5 (4.7 ± 3.1); and DAPSA 38.2 ± 20.3 (16.8 ± 14.9). In a new flare, the increase in composite measure score was calculated as follows: 1 for PASDAS and GRACE, 2 for CPDAI, and 7 for DAPSA. Agreement between the definition of flare using the cut-off of 4 from the questionnaire, and that indicated by the subject in a separate, standalone question was 0.57 (Cohen κ). CONCLUSION: A PsA flare displays escalation of symptoms and signs across multiple domains. The FLARE questionnaire has external validity in terms of both composite disease activity and overall patient opinion about the state of their condition.
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 | 0.015 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".