Bibliographic record
Abstract
Spondyloarthritis (SpA) is recognized as an overarching spectrum of disease characterized by axial SpA (axSpA), peripheral arthritis, enthesitis, and dactylitis. Despite significant overlap, patients are often characterized as having predominantly peripheral or axial involvement. There are advantages to the separate assessment of peripheral and axial disease, particularly in the randomized clinical trial (RCT) setting, in trying to understand the differential effectiveness of novel biologic and targeted synthetic drugs on the peripheral and axial skeleton. While some diagnoses within the SpA concept have attracted increasing research over recent decades, it seems that peripheral SpA (pSpA; excluding psoriatic arthritis [PsA]) still lags behind. Peripheral SpA, as defined by the Assessment of Spondyloarthritis international Society (ASAS) criteria, allows a diagnosis in patients with peripheral arthritis alongside other features of SpA.1 This encompasses PsA but also inflammatory bowel disease–related arthritis, reactive arthritis, and undifferentiated pSpA, representing a diverse group of patients. To date, there have been large numbers of observational and treatment trials in PsA, but there are relatively few in the other forms of pSpA. The aim of the publication of these classification criteria was to support future research into this group. However, in addition to classifying the condition, valid outcome measures are required to examine disease activity, response, and impact in pSpA in the RCT and clinical practice settings. The only large RCT of treatment for nonpsoriatic pSpA to date has been the ABILITY-2 study, which compared adalimumab (ADA) vs placebo.2 This study used the ASAS criteria for inclusion but also excluded patients with predominant axial disease or PsA, as studies of ADA in these populations had already been completed. In this study,2 due to a lack of validated outcome measures addressing arthritis, enthesitis, and dactylitis in this population, a novel composite efficacy outcome measure was designed: the Peripheral … Address correspondence to Prof. L.C. Coates, Botnar Research Centre, Windmill Road, Oxford OX3 7LD, UK. Email: laura.coates{at}ndorms.ox.ac.uk.
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 | 0.154 | 0.331 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
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".