Dr. Kremer et al reply
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To the Editor: Drs. Pincus, Bergman, and Yazici have raised some concerns about our published article comparing the Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) with simultaneous measures of the Routine Assessment of Patient Index Data 3 (RAPID3).1 We believe our publication has clearly established that the validated CDAI scores provide a fundamentally different evaluation of disease status compared with the RAPID3. The differences in the final metrics from these different scoring systems, when compared in a very large number of patients, are quite meaningful.1 The implications of these differences, if used to inform decisions about treating to target,2 are important. It is also academically relevant to note the number of patients we studied from the Corrona and Brigham and Women’s Rheumatoid Arthritis Sequential Study (BRASS) registries was 49,598 from a combination of over 700 rheumatologists at 184 sites over a 20-year interval.1 The publication Pincus et al use to compare data in their letter are derived from a combined total of 285 patients from the practices of each of the … Address correspondence to Dr. J.M. Kremer, MD, 16 Hillard Lane, Latham, NY 12110, USA. Email: jkremer{at}corrona.org.
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 | 0.003 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.027 | 0.028 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.008 |
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".