Tender to touch–Prevalence and impact of concomitant fibromyalgia and enthesitis in spondyloarthritis: An ancillary analysis of the ASAS PerSpA study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The primary objective was to evaluate the co-existence of fibromyalgia (FM) & enthesitis in individuals with spondyloarthritis (SpA). Secondary objectives were to identify clinical features associated with the presence of FM in enthesitis and analyse sex-specific differences. METHODS: This was an ancillary analysis of the Assessment of SpondyloArthritis International Society Peripheral Involvement in SpA (PerSpA) study. Enthesitis was defined as the presence of enthesitis ever. Clinical FM was defined as the rheumatologist's confirmation of the presence of FM. A score of≥5/6 on the Fibromyalgia Rapid Screening Test (FiRST) defined a positive screening test for FM. RESULTS: Enthesitis ever and FM (EFM) co-existed in 10.3% (n=425) of the cohort using FiRST criteria and 5.3% using clinical diagnosis of FM. More individuals with FM by clinical diagnosis had imaging-confirmed enthesitis ever than by FiRST criteria. More females had EFM than males, defined clinically (76.9% vs 23.1%) or by FiRST criteria (62.6% vs 37.4%). Individuals with EFM had more severe disease across all measures compared to those with enthesitis only, with no significant difference between sexes. EFM was significantly associated with age, female sex, BMI, BASDAI and region. CONCLUSION: FM is an important comorbidity in the setting of enthesitis in SpA. While EFM is more common in females, it is not a rare condition in males. EFM is associated with worse disease severity measures in SpA in both males and females. Recognition of FM in the setting of enthesitis is essential to prevent overtreatment and optimise patient outcomes.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".