Development of Psoriasis Assessment Tools Among Patients in the CorEvitas Psoriasis Registry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Dermatologists would benefit from an easy to use psoriasis severity assessment tool in the clinic. Objective To develop psoriasis assessment tools to predict PASI and Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) using simple measures typically collected in clinical practice. Methods Data included 33 605 dermatology visits among plaque psoriasis patients enrolled in the CorEvitas Psoriasis Registry (4/15/15-7/11/20). Performance (adjusted coefficient of determination [R 2 adj ], root mean square error [RMSE]) in predicting PASI and DLQI was assessed for 16 different linear regression models (specified a priori based on combinations of BSA, Investigator’s Global Assessment [IGA], itch, skin pain, patient global assessment, age, sex, BMI, comorbidity index, prior biologic use), and 2 stepwise selection models and 1 elastic net model based on 56 available variables. For each prediction model, concordance (sensitivity, specificity) of predicted PASI75, PASI90 and DLQI 0/1 with observed values was evaluated. Results Mean (SD) age, BSA, and PASI were 51 (14) years, 6 (11), and 4 (6), respectively; 46% were women, and 87% were biologic experienced. A model predicting PASI using BSA plus IGA performed best among a priori specified models (R 2 adj = .72, RMSE = 2.93) and only marginally worse than models including additional variables (R 2 adj range .64-.74, RMSE range 2.82-3.36). Models including IGA had the best concordance between predicted and observed PASI75 (sensitivity range 83-85%, specificity range 88-91%) and PASI90 (sensitivity range 76-82%, specificity range 94-98%). DLQI prediction was limited. Conclusion An assessment tool for psoriasis including BSA and IGA may be an ideal option to predict PASI in a clinic setting.
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 | 0.028 | 0.049 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".