<scp>EULAR</scp> /American College of Rheumatology Risk Stratification Criteria for Development of Rheumatoid Arthritis in the Risk Stage of Arthralgia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The field of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is moving towards identification of and intervention in people at risk of RA, but a validated risk stratification method is lacking. This work was undertaken to develop a risk stratification method for persons presenting with arthralgia considered to be at risk of RA. METHODS: A joint EULAR/American College of Rheumatology (ACR) expert committee was established. Risk factor and outcome data from 10 arthralgia cohorts (including clinically suspect arthralgia and autoantibody-positive arthralgia) were studied. The work focused on differentiating the risk of progression to clinically apparent inflammatory arthritis (IA) within 1 year, using clinical and serologic variables, without and with subclinical joint inflammation detected by ultrasound (US) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Developing RA according to the 2010 EULAR/ACR criteria within 1 year was a secondary outcome. A set of validated risk stratification criteria was developed. RESULTS: Using data from 2,293 symptomatic at-risk individuals, a stratification method was derived consisting of 6 clinical and serologic variables (morning stiffness, patient-reported joint swelling, difficulty making a fist, C-reactive protein, rheumatoid factor, and anti-citrullinated peptide antibody) yielding an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.80 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.77-0.83) for IA development. The inclusion of US variables did not increase the discriminative ability. When MRI-detected subclinical inflammation variables were included, the AUC was 0.87 (95% CI 0.82-0.90). In the presence of clinical, serologic, and MRI variables, a sensitivity and specificity of >75% was achieved. For RA development, the AUC of the criteria with MRI was 0.93 (95% CI 0.90-0.97). CONCLUSIONS: EULAR/ACR risk stratification criteria have been developed for people with arthralgia in secondary care who are considered at risk for RA. The criteria can be applied in the absence or presence of imaging data and have been developed to define homogeneous risk groups for future prevention trials.
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 | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".