Psychosocial burden of axial spondyloarthritis and impact of different disease domains: a systematic literature review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To assess the psychosocial impact of axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA). Methods: A literature search was conducted in two stages: stage 1 included all patients with axSpA and stage 2 focused on patients with inadequate response to prior TNF inhibitor treatment. Selection criteria included population (adults with axSpA), outcomes of interest (psychosocial factors potentially impacted by axSpA, e.g. quality of life, mental health and work productivity) and context [disease-related (disease activity, pain) and -unrelated (gender, race, ethnicity, behaviour) factors potentially affecting psychosocial outcomes). Search results were categorized based on the core domains of disease activity, pain, morning stiffness, fatigue, physical function and overall functioning and health in patients with axSpA. Results: A total of 197 articles were included in this review, most of which were observational, with only one randomized controlled trial (RCT). The evidence suggests an association between greater disease burden and poorer psychosocial outcomes as well as a bidirectional relationship between disease components and psychosocial outcomes, both contributing to the overall disease burden. However, while many studies reported on psychosocial outcomes, potential relationships with disease domains or activity were not evaluated. Furthermore, there were inconsistencies across studies in how these outcomes were measured, such as the use of different tools and/or scales. Conclusion: Given the paucity of RCTs examining psychosocial outcomes in axSpA, future research should focus on standardizing assessment of psychosocial impairments experienced by patients and establishing appropriate interventions and management strategies to ensure the holistic treatment of patients with axSpA and to optimize treatment response and 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 | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".