Clinically suspect arthralgia and rheumatoid arthritis: patients’ perceptions of illness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Clinically suspect arthralgia (CSA) is an at-risk stage of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), in which patients experience symptoms and physical limitations. Perceptions of CSA-patients have remained largely unknown. Therefore, we aimed to map perceptions of CSA-patients and compare these to RA-patients. Additionally, we studied changes in perceptions in CSA over time. METHODS: Three hundred and ninety-nine consecutively included CSA-patients from the Leiden and Rotterdam CSA-cohorts and 100 recently diagnosed RA-patients from the Leiden Early Arthritis Clinic were included. Patients' illness perceptions (IP) were assessed using the Brief Illness Perception Questionnaire (BIPQ), consisting of 8 questions (scale 0-10; higher score indicating more negative IP) covering cognitive, emotional and comprehensibility domains, and one open question about causes of disease. IP were measured at baseline in both populations and during 2years follow-up in the CSA-cohorts. RESULTS: Total BIPQ-scores were comparable at CSA-presentation and RA-diagnosis (40±11 and 40±10; range 0-80). Comparing dimensions separately revealed that CSA-patients were less worried about physical complaints compared to RA-patients. However, CSA-patients were more negative about expected treatment-effect on symptoms. IP over time in CSA improved in patients without development of clinical arthritis (from 38±11 to 34±14; P=0.005) but remained similar in CSA-patients who progressed to arthritis/RA (mean 40 at both timepoints). CSA-patients mainly perceived physical strain and heredity as causes of their complaints. CONCLUSIONS: Although CSA-patients have not developed clinical arthritis, illness perceptions at CSA-presentation and RA-diagnosis are equally severe. Knowledge on worries and expectations may contribute to improving patient-contact and care in patients at risk of RA.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".