Sex-Specific Differences in Patients With Psoriatic Arthritis: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: A systematic review of published literature was conducted to collate evidence on sex-specific differences in clinical characteristics, disease activity, and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in psoriatic arthritis (PsA), including response to treatment. METHODS: Searches of MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were performed in November 2020 for observational studies of adults with PsA reporting outcomes by sex (published from January 1, 2015, to November 13, 2020). In addition, hand searches of systematic literature reviews and (network) metaanalysis bibliographies were performed. Searches of ClinicalTrials.gov and congress abstracts from the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology, the American College of Rheumatology (ACR), and the American Academy of Dermatology (2019-2020) were also carried out. Eligible studies with 100 or more patients prespecified a comparison by sex and reported clinical characteristics and/or disease activity. Data extracted included patient characteristics, study design, baseline clinical characteristics, and disease activity results, including PROs. RESULTS: Database searching yielded 3283 unique records; 31 publications of 27 unique studies were included. The review found generally higher rates of peripheral disease in women, including higher tender joint counts. There was some evidence of more axial disease in men, plus greater skin disease burden. There were consistently no differences in Dermatology Life Quality Index scores, though across other PROs, women had worse scores, including pain and fatigue. Women had poorer responses to treatment, indicated by outcome measures such as ACR responses and minimal disease activity. CONCLUSION: This review indicates that important differences exist between the sexes in PsA. However, the limited evidence for this conclusion underlines the need for additional research in this area.
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 | 0.009 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".