MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4362450404 · doi:10.3899/jrheum.230158

Inflammatory and Noninflammatory Disease Activity in Rheumatoid Arthritis: The Effect of Pain on Personalized Medicine

2023· letter· en· W4362450404 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Daniel F. McWilliams, David A. Walsh

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Rheumatology · 2023
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPain Mechanisms and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersGlaxoSmithKlineUCB PharmaVersus ArthritisPfizerEli Lilly and Company
KeywordsMedicineRheumatoid arthritisDiseaseVisual analogue scalePhysical therapyRheumatologyChronic painStimulus modalityInternal medicineSensory systemNeurosciencePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Disease activity in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is often described in terms of inflammation, although noninflammatory mechanisms are also integral to the disease. Pain is the most important symptom for many people with RA,1 and is therefore a key component of clinically relevant measures of RA disease activity. As an example, the Disease Activity Score in 28 joints (DAS28) incorporates a visual analog scale for general health (VAS-GH) and tender joint counts (TJCs), which are largely dependent on pain. Inflammation contributes to RA pain, but so also do noninflammatory mechanisms. In this edition of The Journal of Rheumatology , Wohlfahrt et al2 use DAS28 to define disease activity, explicitly incorporating both inflammation and noninflammatory pain into their concept of active disease. Noninflammatory pain mechanisms are multiple and complex, and pain can be experienced in different ways by different people and at different times. Pain may be constant or intermittent, localized or widespread, and may be described by a variety of words, such as throbbing, burning, gnawing, or shooting. Pain is often reduced during measurement to a single number, for example, in answer to the global question, “How severe has your pain been over the past week?”3 However, the various pain characteristics are mediated by different mechanisms within peripheral and central nervous systems. Quantitative sensory testing (QST) can be used to explore aspects of hypersensitivity that contribute to the experience of pain. QST has used multiple modalities with standardized stimuli to explore different pain mechanisms. Pain hypersensitivity may indicate either increased facilitation or decreased inhibition of nociceptive transmission. Pressure pain thresholds (PPTs) measure the lowest pressure experienced as pain when a standardized pressure is applied, for example, to a joint or muscle. PPTs are reduced if there is sensitization of peripheral nociceptive neurons (eg, due to inflammation), but they … Address correspondence to Prof. D.A. Walsh, Academic Rheumatology, University of Nottingham Clinical Sciences Building, City Hospital, Nottingham NG5 1PB, UK. Email: david.walsh{at}nottingham.ac.uk.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.033
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.056

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.033
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.005
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.244 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Rheumatology→Same topicPain Mechanisms and Treatments→French-language works237,207→