Hand function is already reduced before RA development and reflects subclinical tenosynovitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Clinically suspect arthralgia (CSA) is characterised by arthralgia of small joints and considered a risk stage for development of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). However, it remains unknown if the function of the hands is already affected and what mechanisms underlie impaired hand-function in CSA. METHODS: We studied various measures of hand function in two CSA populations. CSA patients in the TREAT EARLIER-trial (n=236) were evaluated at baseline for: grip strength on a dynamometer (GS), patient-reported difficulties in the grip domain of the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) questionnaire and incomplete fist closure at physical examination. Findings were validated in an independent CSA cohort (n=600) where hand function was measured as: GS evaluated by squeezing the examiner's fingers, grip domain of the HAQ questionnaire and fist closure. Contrast-enhanced MRI of the hands measured synovitis, tenosynovitis and bone marrow oedema (summed as subclinical inflammation) in both cohorts. RESULTS: GS (on a dynamometer) was reduced in 75% compared with reference values in healthy controls, 60% reported grip difficulties and 13% had incomplete fist closure. Reduced GS was associated with subclinical inflammation (-0.38 kg/point inflammation, 95% CI -0.68 to -0.08). Studying separate MRI features, GS reduction was independently associated with tenosynovitis, decreasing with -2.63 kg (95% CI -2.26 to -0.33)/point tenosynovitis (range observed tenosynovitis scores: 0-20). Similar relations with tenosynovitis were seen for patient-reported grip difficulties (OR 1.12/point, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.42) and incomplete fist closure (OR 1.36/point, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.79). In the validation cohort, 36% had decreased examiner-assessed GS, 51% reported grip difficulties and 14% incomplete fist closure: all were associated with tenosynovitis. Decreased dynamometer-measured GS was most sensitive for detecting tenosynovitis (75%), while incomplete fist closure was most specific (88%-90%). CONCLUSION: Hand function is already often affected before RA development. These limitations are related to subclinical inflammation and tenosynovitis in particular.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".