Treat-to-target in axial spondyloarthritis: an observational study in daily practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the extent to which internationally agreed treat-to-target recommendations were applied in clinical practice in patients with axial spondyloarthritis. METHODS: Data were used from a web-based patient registry for monitoring SpA in daily practice in the Netherlands. The extent to which treat-to-target was applied was evaluated through four indicators: the proportion of patients (i) with ≥1 Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS) assessed during a 1-year period, (ii) having inactive disease/low disease activity (i.e. ASDAS < 2.1), (iii) in whom re-evaluation of ASDAS within recommended intervals occurred, and (iv) with high disease activity (HDA, i.e. ASDAS ≥ 2.1) in whom treatment was adapted ≤6 weeks after obtaining ASDAS ≥ 2.1. Patients with HDA with treatment adaptations were compared with patients with HDA without treatment adaptations. RESULTS: In 185 out of 219 patients (84%), disease activity was monitored with ≥1 ASDAS during a 1-year period, of whom 71 (38%) patients had a score below the target (ASDAS < 2.1) at first measurement. Re-evaluation of ASDAS ≤3 months occurred in 11% and 23% of the patients with inactive disease/low disease activity and HDA, respectively. Treatment adaptation occurred in 19 out of 114 patients (17%) with HDA. Patients in whom treatment was adapted had significantly higher ASDAS (P < 0.01), CRP levels (P < 0.05) and physician global assessment (P < 0.05) compared with patients without treatment adaptations. CONCLUSIONS: Treat-to-target was applied to a limited extent in clinical practice in patients with axial spondyloarthritis. Available disease activity scores seemed not to be used for determining the frequency of re-evaluation nor treatment adaptation.
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 | 0.005 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".