Clinimetric Validation of the Assessment of Spondyloarthritis International Society Health Index in Patients With Radiographic Axial Spondyloarthritis in Ixekizumab Trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To assess test-retest reliability, construct validity, known groups discrimination, and responsiveness of the Assessment of the SpondyloArthritis international Society Health Index (ASAS HI) to evaluate functioning, disability, and health in patients with radiographic axial spondyloarthritis (r-axSpA). Methods Data were generated from 2 randomized, placebo-controlled, active-controlled phase III ixekizumab studies (COAST-V, N = 341; COAST-W, N = 316). Assessments included the following: test-retest reliability (ie, intraclass correlation coefficients [ICCs] between ASAS HI scores at screening and baseline), construct validity (ie, Spearman correlation with standard r-axSpA outcome measures), known groups discrimination (ie, 1-way ANOVA comparing the ASAS HI with different disease activity categories, measured by the Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score [ASDAS]), and responsiveness (ie, Spearman correlation between changes in the ASAS HI and changes in the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index [BASFI], the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index [BASDAI], the ASDAS, and the Patient Global Assessment [PtGA] as well as ANOVA comparing changes in the ASAS HI with various responder categories). Results The ICC for test-retest reliability was 0.78 for COAST-V and 0.76 for COAST-W, indicating adequate agreement. Moderate-to-large correlations (r= 0.40-0.61) were observed between the ASAS HI and the BASDAI. Statistically significant differences (allP< 0.001) between mean ASAS HI scores were observed for subgroups based on ASDAS-defined disease activity categories at baseline and week 16. Moderate-to-large correlations existed between changes in the ASAS HI and the BASFI, BASDAI, ASDAS, and PtGA from baseline to week 16. The ASAS HI differentiated statistically (P< 0.001) between ASAS, BASDAI, and ASDAS response groups. Conclusion The ASAS HI demonstrated reliability, construct validity, known groups discrimination, and responsiveness in adults with r-axSpA in 2 clinical trials.
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 | 0.120 | 0.132 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
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".