MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4285589086 · doi:10.3899/jrheum.211075

Simplified Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (SASDAS) Versus ASDAS: A Post Hoc Analysis of a Randomized Controlled Trial

2022· article· en· W4285589086 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Emilce E. Schneeberger, Gustavo Citera, Darío Ponce de León, Annette E. Szumski, Kenneth Kwok, Mariel Cutri, Maxime Dougados

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Rheumatology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpondyloarthritis Studies and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersPfizerEli Lilly and Company
KeywordsMedicineAnkylosing spondylitisEtanerceptInternal medicinePost-hoc analysisPlaceboAxial spondyloarthritisPhysical therapyRandomized controlled trialSpondylitisAdalimumabDiseaseRheumatoid arthritisPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To compare the Simplified Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (SASDAS) against the Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS) for measuring and categorizing disease activity using data from the EMBARK trial (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01258738), a randomized controlled trial of etanercept (ETN) for axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA). METHODS: Patients with early active axSpA received ETN 50 mg once weekly (n = 106) or placebo (PBO; n = 109) for 12 weeks in a double-blind manner; they then received open-label ETN for 92 weeks. For this analysis, ASDAS-C-reactive protein (CRP) and SASDAS-CRP were calculated at baseline, week 12, and week 24. The SASDAS was calculated by the linear addition of the ASDAS components without adjustment. RESULTS: A very strong correlation, as determined by the Spearman correlation coefficient, was observed between the ASDAS and SASDAS for continuous variables at baseline and during treatment. For pooled categorical data at baseline, the SASDAS placed 69.9% of patients in the same disease categories as the ASDAS but overestimated for 17.8% of patients and underestimated for 12.2% of patients. A similar pattern was seen postbaseline. Cohen weighted [Formula: see text] statistics for all individual and pooled treatments and timepoints (0.54-0.73) reflected moderate to substantial agreement. The capacity to differentiate between treatments (ie, ETN and PBO/ETN) was higher with the ASDAS (effect size -0.74, 95% CI -1.03 to -0.46) compared with the SASDAS (effect size -0.51, 95% CI -0.79 to -0.23), but sensitivity to change was generally similar. CONCLUSION: A very strong correlation between the SASDAS and ASDAS was observed when considering continuous variables; however, moderate to substantial agreement was observed for categorical data, and the SASDAS classified a lower proportion of patients as being in the inactive and low disease activity categories.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.019
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.100

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0190.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0120.008
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.271 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNon-randomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Rheumatology→Same topicSpondyloarthritis Studies and Treatments→French-language works237,207→