The impact of psoriasis on wellbeing and clinical outcomes in juvenile psoriatic arthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Juvenile PsA (JPsA) has varied clinical features that are distinctive from other JIA categories. This study investigates whether such features impact patient-reported and clinical outcomes. METHODS: Children and young people (CYP) were selected if recruited to the Childhood Arthritis Prospective Study, a UK multicentre JIA inception cohort, between January 2001 and March 2018. At diagnosis, patient/parent-reported outcomes (as age-appropriate) included the parental global assessment (10 cm visual analogue scale), functional ability (Childhood Health Assessment Questionnaire (CHAQ)), pain (10 cm visual analogue scale), health-related quality of life (Child Health Questionnaire PF50 psychosocial score), mood/depressive symptoms (Moods and Feelings Questionnaire) and parent psychosocial health (General Health Questionnaire 30). Three-year outcome trajectories have previously been defined using active joint counts, physician and parent global assessments (PGA and PaGA, respectively). Patient-reported outcomes and outcome trajectories were compared in (i) CYP with JPsA vs other JIA categories and (ii) CYP within JPsA, with and without psoriasis via multivariable linear regression. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in patient-reported outcomes at diagnosis between CYP with JPsA and non-JPsA. Within JPsA, those with psoriasis had more depressive symptoms (coefficient = 9.8; 95% CI: 0.5, 19.0) than those without psoriasis at diagnosis. CYP with JPsA had 2.3 times the odds of persistent high PaGA than other ILAR categories, despite improving joint counts and PGA (95% CI: 1.2, 4.6). CONCLUSION: CYP with psoriasis at JPsA diagnosis report worse mood, supporting a greater disease impact in those with both skin and joint involvement. Multidisciplinary care with added focus to support wellbeing in children with JPsA plus psoriasis may help improve these outcomes.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".