Gender Differences in Disease Activity and Impact in Axial Spondyloarthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ankylosing spondylitis (AS), characterized by inflammatory back pain and sacroiliitis on radiography, was traditionally considered a condition predominant in men. Since the introduction of the 2009 Assessment in Spondyloarthritis international Society classification criteria1 aiming to facilitate earlier classification of cases without radiographic sacroiliitis, more women have been classified as having axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA). The prevalence of men/women with AS, which was 3:1 in the 1990s,2 is now equal in newer cohorts, particularly for nonradiographic (nr-) axSpA.3 Differences in the manifestations of axSpA between men and women have been increasingly recognized in the last decade. Studies have reported that women have more peripheral disease and higher pain, fatigue, and disease activity, whereas men have higher inflammatory markers and structural damage on radiography.4,5 In this issue of The Journal of Rheumatology , Mease, et al report the sex differences in axSpA using real-world data from the Corrona Registry.6 The Corrona Psoriatic Arthritis and Spondyloarthritis (PsA/SpA) Registry is a large prospective observational cohort started in 2013 from 58 practices across 30 states in the United States. In their study, 498 patients with rheumatologist-diagnosed axSpA (without concurrent diagnosis of PsA) with baseline data for sex were included. Of these, 191 (38.4%) were women. There was a long delay in diagnosis of over 7 years in patients. In contrast to previous studies that cited a longer delay in diagnosis among women,7 there were no differences in diagnosis delay comparing men and women; this is possibly … Address correspondence to Dr. Y.Y. Leung, Department of Rheumatology and Immunology, Singapore General Hospital, The Academia, level 4, 20 College Road, Singapore 169856. Email: katyccc{at}hotmail.com.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".