Prolonged morning stiffness is common in hand OA and does not preclude a diagnosis of hand osteoarthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Prolonged morning stiffness (>60 min) is considered a symptom of inflammatory arthritis, but has a poor discriminative ability. Knowledge about morning stiffness in patients with hand osteoarthritis (OA) is lacking. We therefore studied morning stiffness in patients with hand OA. DESIGN: Patients with primary hand OA according to their treating rheumatologist in the Hand OSTeoArthritis in Secondary care (HOSTAS) cohort were studied. Severity of morning stiffness was examined with Australian/Canadian hand OA index (AUSCAN) and presence and duration of morning stiffness were examined with a standardized questionnaire. Association of patient and disease characteristics with prolonged morning stiffness (>60 min) were analyzed with logistic regression. RESULTS: In total 519 of 538 patients had available data about duration of morning stiffness, of whom 89 (17%) had prolonged morning stiffness. Severity of stiffness was mild in 158 of 525 (30%), intermediate in 194 (37%), severe in 97 (18%) and extreme in 19 (4%) patients. Patients with prolonged morning stiffness reported more pain, worse physical function and had a reduced mental and physical quality of life. Patients with prolonged morning stiffness also had more severe radiographic disease, although the association did not reach statistical significance. CONCLUSIONS: Prolonged and severe morning stiffness are frequently present in patients with hand OA. Patients with these symptoms report more pain in general and have a lower quality of life than patients that do not report these symptoms. Prolonged morning stiffness does not preclude a diagnosis of hand OA.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".