Comparative analysis between ankylosing spondylitis and axial psoriatic arthritis patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To compare clinical aspects, disease activity, spinal mobility, and radiographic findings between ankylosing spondylitis (AS) and axial psoriatic arthritis (axPsA) patients Fifty-eight AS and 42 axPsA patients were enrolled. Patients were assessed by clinical examination, spinal mobility measurements, and conventional radiographs of the sacroiliac joints, lumbosacral and cervical spines. Bath. AS Metrology Index (BASMI) and modified Stoke AS Spinal Score (mSASSS) were measured. Spondyloarthritis Research Consortium of Canada (SPARCC) enthesitis index score and AS Disease Activity Score (ASDAS) were assessed. Results: The mean age of AS and AxPsA patients were comparable (37.2 ± 11.2 years vs 39.6 ± 13.3 years;p = 0.33) and male:female was 2.63 vs 0.24:1 (p < 0.0001). Inflammatory back pain (IBP) was higher in AS (93.1%) than axPsA (76.2%). Peripheral arthritis was higher in axPsA (85.7%) than in AS (39.7%). Dactylitis and nail dystrophy were present only in axPsA (33.3% and 28.6% respectively) while uveitis was more common in AS (60.3%vs 28.6%;p = 0.12). SPARCC score was higher in axPsA (p = 0.12).The median BASMI was higher in AS (2.1) than axPsA (1.2)(p = 0.07). The mSASSS was similar (AS:19.6 ± 4.7;6–40 and axPsA:14.4 ± 2.1;0–32)(p = 0.23). 63.8% of AS patients had grade 3 sacroiliitis while 61.9% of axPsA had grade 2. 75.9% of AS had high ASDAS while 33.3% of axPsA patients had very high activity (p = 0.039). AS patients were more likely to be males, smoked, higher IBP, lower peripheral arthritis, more uveitis, higher limitation in spinal mobility measurements, more spinal deformities, and severe radiographic involvement with nearly equal disease activity as in axPsA patients.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".