Evaluation of Clinical Diagnosis of Axial Psoriatic Arthritis (PsA) or Elevated Patient-reported Spine Pain in CorEvitas’ PsA/Spondyloarthritis Registry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To determine the presence of axial symptoms in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and examine differences between those with or without a diagnosis of axial PsA (axPsA). Methods Patients with PsA at their Corevitas’ (formerly Corrona) Psoriatic Arthritis/Spondyloarthritis Registry enrollment visit were stratified into 4 mutually exclusive groups based on axial manifestations: physician-diagnosed axPsA only (Dx+Sx–), patient-reported elevated spine symptoms only (Dx–Sx+; defined as Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index ≥ 4 and spine pain visual analog scale ≥ 40), physician-diagnosed and patient-reported manifestations (Dx+Sx+), and no axial manifestations (Dx–Sx–). Patient characteristics, disease activity, and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) at enrollment in each axial manifestation group were compared with the Dx–Sx–group. Associations of patient characteristics with the odds of having axial manifestations were estimated using multinomial logistic regression (reference: Dx–Sx–). Results Of 3393 patients included, 226 (6.7%) had Dx+Sx–, 698 (20.6%) had Dx–Sx+, 165 (4.9%) had Dx+Sx+, and 2304 (67.9%) had Dx–Sx–. Patients with Dx–Sx+or Dx+Sx+were more frequently women and had a history of depression and fibromyalgia (FM) vs patients who had Dx–Sx–. Patients with Dx+Sx–or Dx+Sx+were more frequently HLA-B27 positive than those with Dx–Sx–. FM was significantly associated with increased odds of Dx+Sx–or Dx+Sx+. Disease activity and PROs were worse in patients with Dx–Sx+or Dx+Sx+than in those with Dx–Sx–. Conclusion Patients who had self-reported elevated spine symptoms, with or without physician-diagnosed axPsA, had worse quality of life and higher disease activity overall than patients without axial manifestations, suggesting an unmet need in this patient population.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".