Patients with clinically diagnosed hand OA not fulfilling the ACR classification criteria are in an earlier disease phase and more often have thumb base OA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To investigate the performance of the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) classification criteria for hand osteoarthritis. Longitudinal data up to four years from a cohort of consecutive patients with primary hand osteoarthritis diagnosed by their rheumatologist (Hostas study) were used to classify presence or absence of hand osteoarthritis according to the 1990 ACR criteria (traditional format: one major and 4 minor ACR criteria) (ACR+/ACR−). Demographics, Australian/Canadian osteoarthritis hand index (AUSCAN) pain and function were obtained. Hand radiographs were scored according to Kellgren-Lawrence; radiographic osteoarthritis was defined as Kellgren-Lawrence ≥2 in ≥1 CMC1 joint or ≥2 DIP/PIP/MCP joints. Of 538 patients (mean age 61 years, 86.1% women) 485 (90.1%) fulfilled ACR criteria at baseline. Except for the minor criterion swelling of <3 MCP joints, all criteria differed between the groups. ACR− patients were younger, with higher BMI, a shorter time since diagnosis, and less bony enlargements, joint deformities and radiographic osteoarthritis, except for radiographic CMC1 osteoarthritis which was seen more often in ACR− patients. No difference in AUSCAN pain or function was seen between ACR− versus ACR+ patients. After follow-up 37/53 (69.8%) converted to ACR+, 2/53 (3.8%) did not, and 14/53 (26.4%) were lost to follow-up. In clinical practice the majority of patients fulfill the ACR classification criteria, but those in an earlier disease phase, with less signs of hand osteoarthritis or with primarily thumb base osteoarthritis are less likely to fulfill them. New classification criteria also including earlier disease stages and with attention for hand osteoarthritis subtypes are required.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".