“It means almost forgetting that you've got a disease”: An OMERACT study to define independence in the context of rheumatoid arthritis remission from the patient perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: Our previous work identified pain, fatigue, and independence as missing from the ACR/EULAR rheumatoid arthritis (RA) remission criteria from the patient perspective. Validated measures exist for pain and fatigue, but not for independence. As a first step towards developing such a measure, this study aimed to understand 'Independence' in the context of RA remission from the patient perspective. METHODS: International qualitative research study comprising five focus groups of 19 participants with RA. Data were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. RESULTS: Five overarching themes were identified, underpinned by a construct of "stages of independence". Independence means at least being 'physically and functionally able' but may go beyond this and enable 'participation beyond function', 'cognitive independence', and 'having or taking control'. There was no agreement on whether assistance is an aid to independence or undermines ability to achieve independence ('assistance is complicated'). The construct "Stages of independence" acknowledges that Independence may mean different things to different patients and there may be other factors beyond disease activity that hold patients in each of these stages. CONCLUSION: These novel data suggest a desirable definition of independence includes full active participation without the need to consider or work around disease activity, and cognitive independence from thoughts of RA. Independence in RA remission is a complex concept and next steps will be to seek patient and professional agreement on the most important issues raised in these focus groups to take forward to developing a measure for independence in the context of RA remission from the patient perspective.
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 | 0.014 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".