Drs. Konsta and van der Horst-Bruinsma reply
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To the Editor: We thank Dr. Slouma et al1 for their earnest interest in our recent article, which examined the prevalence and radiographic progression of hip involvement in patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS) treated with tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi).2 The prevalence of hip involvement in our study was very close to the authors’ previous one (60/165 patients, 36.4%).3 Moreover, the relation between disease activity (ie, C-reactive protein [CRP]), functional impairment (ie, Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index [BASFI]), spinal radiographic damage (ie, presence of syndesmophytes), and hip involvement was confirmed by our study,2 similar to the authors’ previous work.3 In their correspondence, Slouma et al raise the question of potential structural repair of hip joints … Address correspondence to Dr. M. Konsta, Department of Rheumatology Sismanoglion Hospital, 37 Sismanogliou Street, Marousi 151 26, Greece. Email: markonsta{at}hotmail.com.
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 | 0.002 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.018 | 0.020 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.006 |
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".