ArticleRMD open2026
Can alternative means of phenotyping rheumatoid arthritis reduce its apparent heterogeneity? A comparison of three disease activity classifications with DAS28.
Article in RMD open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesRheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a disease with a heterogeneous phenotype. Partly, this heterogeneity may be concealed by metrics such as 28-joint disease activity score (DAS28) that may assign similar scores to dissimilar phenotypes. To explore how individual patient profiles may be separated, we developed three classification schemes and compared these with DAS28 in newly diagnosed RA.
methodsWe selected patients aged 18-100 years, newly diagnosed with RA between 2012 and 2022 and registered in the Swedish Rheumatology Quality Register. We devised three alternative classifications based on (i) a subjective-objective decomposition of the DAS28 (seven levels), (ii) clinical experience-based cut-offs for each of the DAS28 components (five levels) and (iii) a data-driven Gaussian Mixture Model (five clusters). For each classification, we calculated descriptive statistics for clinical characteristics, demographic variables and comorbidity histories, and contrasted these with those based on DAS28 categories in our study population.
resultsWe identified 6624 patients with complete data on all included variables. In each of the alternative classifications, subjectively dominated and objectively dominated subsets captured differences regarding comorbidity histories not detectable in the DAS28 categories. Across all alternative classifications, subjectively dominated subsets had lower work ability than objectively dominated subsets and included 50%-300% more patients with pain and psychiatric diagnoses prior to RA diagnosis.
conclusionsSeparating subjective and objective dimensions reveals different RA patient profiles that are grouped together by DAS28, demonstrating the extent to which DAS28 is confounded by factors beyond RA disease activity. Disentangling and treating heterogeneous RA patient profiles may therefore require more granular disease activity classification systems.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.