Reviewing Disease Activity Indices in Spondyloarthritis From the Sex Perspective: A Systematic Review and Metaanalysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To determine whether the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) and the Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS) exhibited differences between women and men. Methods We systematically searched MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and other sources in English or Spanish from January 1, 1995, to July 31, 2020, to assess the differences according to sex in BASDAI and ASDAS. We performed a comparative analysis by sex using t test and mean difference by sex metaanalyses for BASDAI and ASDAS, as well as a random-effects model using the inverse-variance method. Results Forty-one studies included BASDAI (6785 women, 12,929 men) and 16 of them included ASDAS (2046 women, 4403 men). Disease activity detected using BASDAI was significantly higher in women than in men (mean 4.9 vs 4.2, P = 0.02), whereas ASDAS did not detect differences between sexes (mean 2.8 women vs 2.8 men). In the metaanalyses, BASDAI detected significant differences between women and men (mean difference = 0.55 [95% CI 0.46–0.65], P < 0.00001), but ASDAS did not identify significant mean difference between sexes (0.04, 95% CI –0.05 to 0.12], P = 0.38). Conclusion The 2 most widely used indices of disease activity in spondyloarthritis (SpA) discriminate differently according to sex by their different evaluations of peripheral disease. The different components and weights in BASDAI and ASDAS influence their values. BASDAI may be affected by fatigue, and in predominantly peripheral manifestations such as enthesitis, ASDAS may not be sensitive enough to detect activity. This may represent a sex bias unfavorable to women, because peripheral SpA is more common in women than in men.
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 | 0.019 | 0.049 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.024 | 0.029 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".