Employment and Functional Ability in Men and Women With Axial Spondyloarthritis as Described in the US-based Corrona Psoriatic Arthritis/Spondyloarthritis Registry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To the Editor: We read with interest the recent article from Mease et al1 regarding the analysis of men and women with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) captured in the Corrona Psoriatic Arthritis/Spondyloarthritis Registry. Dedicated comparative analysis in large, well-characterized cohorts such as this are crucial to identifying the variation of axSpA between males and females. The data on employment status including outcomes from the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire (WPAI) were especially interesting. It was reported that the rate of employment was similar between men and women (67.8% vs 64%, P = 0.39). Females had a significantly lower rate of disability (12.6% vs 16%, P < 0.01), despite reporting worse impairment while working (35.4% vs 24.9%, P < … Address correspondence to Dr. S. Maguire, Department of Rheumatology, St James’ Hospital, Dublin, Ireland. Email: sineadmaguire{at}rcsi.ie.
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 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".