Grip strength reduction in clinically suspect arthralgia: natural trajectories and improvement after treatment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Decreased hand function is a major contributor to disease burden in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and is present in most patients with RA at diagnosis.1 2 Recent research showed that hand function is reduced in the symptomatic prearthritis phase of clinically suspect arthralgia (CSA) and is a reflection of subclinical tenosynovitis.3 Grip strength (GS) measured with a dynamometer had the highest sensitivity for decreased hand function and underlying tenosynovitis, compared with other assessment methods of hand function.3 Although this may suggest that the dynamometer could be a practical assessment in CSA to objectify functional impairments originating from subclinical joint inflammation, it needs to be determined if dynamometer-based GS assessments in CSA are sensitive to change and mirror the disease course of CSA. To our best knowledge, longitudinal studies on GS in the phases preceding RA diagnosis are lacking. We hypothesised that GS follows distinct natural trajectories in patients with CSA who have contrasting disease courses (RA development, persistent CSA symptoms without RA development and spontaneous resolution of arthralgia). Second, since it was recently shown that a temporary methotrexate treatment in CSA resulted in sustained improvements of subclinical joint inflammation, we hypothesised that GS is responsive to treatment in the CSA phase.4
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| 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".