standOff, and the article is at its publisher via the link below. When we have changed our mind. Some entries in the table begin with a word in capitals and the reason for it. EVIDENCE CORRECTED — the finding still stands, but we had quoted the wrong sentence from the paper, and the quotation has been replaced with the right one. RETRACTED — the entry itself was wrong; it stays on the page, marked, with the reason, rather than being deleted. WITHDRAWN AND REPLACED — the entry was wrong, and a corrected version of it appears in the entries below. Each mark carries its own reason, in brackets, because the reasons differ from one entry to the next. An entry we have WITHDRAWN is removed from this page and kept in the record, with its reason. A line reading Audit and a date is a later re-reading of the entry against its whole sentence: DOUBTFUL means it was kept, and the reason says what is loose about it. Quotation marks inside the tagger's sentence. Where a tag is the tagger's own sentence, a phrase in quotation marks inside it is borrowed from the paper — the tagger's wording around it is not. The paper's own sentence is the evidence quote for that row; on this page it is withheld with the article, and the article is at its publisher. Nothing inside quotation marks anywhere on this page is ours: if it is quoted, it is the paper's. Whose words a concept carries. A concept entry records a term the paper itself uses, so the term, the sense given for it, and its evidence are the paper's own words, quoted where the paper fixes them. This is the opposite of a sense entry in the tag table, which is the tagger's sentence about how the paper uses a term. Where a concept entry could not be grounded in the paper's words, the entry says so on its own row.| relation to other work | claim_relations | how this paper stands to another: agrees, contradicts, extends, qualifies |
| claim type | claim_type | the shape of the claim: existence, mechanism, method, critique, prediction, null |
| concept edge | concept_edges | an asserted relation between two concepts, with the sentence asserting it |
| concept | concepts | an idea the paper works with, quoted where the paper uses it |
| content tag | content_tags | a finding, definition, quantity, statistic or variable named in the paper |
| contribution | contribution | what the paper claims to add |
| control | controls | an experiment run to eliminate a rival explanation |
| limitation | limitations | what the paper says its evidence cannot support |
| mechanism | mechanisms | how the reported effect is said to come about |
| method | method | how the paper produced its evidence |
| object of study | object_of_study | what the paper is about — the thing it investigates |
| phenomenon | phenomenon | the effect or regularity under study |
| research question | research_question | the question the paper sets itself |
| sense | senses | a distinct use of a term, quoted where the paper fixes it |
Relations on this page carry a quotation for the claim. Where a relation was separately evidenced — and so tested against the vocabulary for its type — the row says so; 3 of 3 relations here carry that mark. The rest are the tagger’s reading of the sentence quoted beside them.
| facet | tag | field | conf. | whose words |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| object_of_study | A CLASSIFICATION CRITERIA SET BUILT FROM A GOLD STANDARD, A DELPHI, A 983-SUBJECT DIAGNOSTIC STUDY AND A DISCRETE-CHOICE CONJOINT EXPERIMENT - and published simultaneously in two journals, in two orthographies Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | object_of_study | the paper's words | |
| research_question | how to classify gout for enrolment into studies when the gold standard is available but not feasible, and when every existing criteria set trades sensitivity against specificity badly Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | research_question | the paper's words | |
| contribution | the 2015 ACR/EULAR criteria: an entry criterion, a sufficient criterion, no exclusion criteria, eight weighted domains scored to a maximum of 23 with a threshold of 8, two categories carrying NEGATIVE weights, sensitivity 0.92 and specificity 0.89 in an independent validation set Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | contribution | the paper's words | |
| claim_type | method Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_type | the paper's words | |
| phenomenon | a disease with a gold standard that cannot be applied to most of the people who have it, so the definition has to work without it Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | phenomenon | the paper's words | |
| method | expert-consensus Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: expert-consensus | method | the paper's words | |
| mechanisms | A CRITERION EXCLUDED FROM THE DEFINITION BECAUSE INCLUDING IT WOULD DESTROY THE ABILITY TO STUDY IT: `The last three factors [response to treatment, family history, risk factors or associated comorbidities] were NOT CONSIDERED FURTHER as they are not features of gout itself despite their association with gout, and inclusion of risk factors or comorbidities in the definition of gout would preclude future studies evaluating their association with gout.` The clearest statement of definitional circularity in this corpus, and it is a design decision rather than a critique Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | AND THE SAME REFUSAL AGAIN, IN THE VALIDATION: `Quotation withheld` A published sensitivity of 1.00 that is an artefact of the definition, named as such - and three of the sets in the comparison table carry exactly that 1.00 Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[1] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | AND EVIDENCE *AGAINST* MEMBERSHIP IS WEIGHTED, NOT DISCARDED: `there are two categories that elicit negative scores. Specifically, if the synovial fluid is MSU negative, 2 POINTS ARE SUBTRACTED from the total score. Similarly, if the serum urate level is <4 mg/dL, 4 POINTS ARE SUBTRACTED. This approach was taken to emphasise that these findings reduce the probability of gout.` A membership score that can go DOWN on evidence - a shape this corpus's `weight` field has no way to express, since weight is bounded below by zero and means confidence, not direction Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[2] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | AND A NEGATIVE TEST SCORES THE SAME AS NO TEST, DELIBERATELY: `In the discrete-choice experiments, Quotation withheld, supporting the validity of using the scoring system in the absence of imaging data.` Our own `absent-not-in-staged-text` problem, in a clinical criteria set - and here the collapse is a decision, taken so that the criteria work where the scanner does not exist Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[3] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | AND THE WEIGHTS COME FROM A DECISION-SCIENCE EXPERIMENT, NOT FROM A REGRESSION: `the expert panel undertook a series of discrete-choice experiments. This work resulted in weights being assigned to each category and domain, such that the highest category of each domain summed to a total of 100%` - pairwise forced choices in 1000Minds, with the panel told to assume all other parameters equal, and face validity checked against their own pre-meeting ranking of ten cases Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[4] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | AND TWO INDEPENDENT ROUTES LANDED ON THE SAME THRESHOLD: `the expert panel performed a threshold identification exercise designed to assess the members' willingness to enrol 47 paper cases ... into a Phase 3 randomised clinical trial of a new urate-lowering agent with unclear efficacy and safety. The score at which the majority considered an individual as having gout or not fell at the same threshold as that identified as the cut-off score that maximised the sum of sensitivity and specificity.` A statistical optimum and a clinical willingness-to-enrol judgement agreeing - which is the only threshold validation of its kind in this corpus Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[5] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | AND MEMBERSHIP ACCRUES OVER TIME: `the classification was to apply to the patient's total disease experience, not to classify individual symptomatic episodes ... elements of the criteria could be accrued over time such that individuals could fulfil criteria at a later time point even if they did not at the initial assessment.` The unit of classification is a life, not a visit - and the categories are `hierarchical and mutually exclusive, such that if a higher and a lower category have been fulfilled at different points in time, the higher one should be scored` Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[6] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | AND THE EMPTY SLOT IS DELIBERATE, WITH ITS REASON: `Quotation withheld` A criteria set that declines to say what rules the disease out, because both the disease and the instrument allow exceptions Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[7] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | CRITERIA USED FOR DECADES OUTSIDE THE SCOPE THEIR AUTHORS DECLARED: `Quotation withheld`. The stated scope was narrower than the use, and the correction comes 38 years later from a different body. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[8] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | AND A DEFINITION MADE OBSOLETE BY AN INSTRUMENT THAT DID NOT EXIST WHEN IT WAS WRITTEN: `Quotation withheld.` The criteria did not become wrong; the measurable world grew - which is the same shape as haas2018 admitting i-IFTA because the population changed. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[9] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | THE DEFINITION DISCLAIMS THE USE EVERYONE WILL PUT IT TO: `It should be recognised that Quotation withheld. Thus, in clinical practice, joint or tophus aspiration remains an essential component of establishing a diagnosis of gout.` The criteria exist to assemble study populations, and the paper says so where a reader is most likely to misuse them Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | limitations[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | AND THE THRESHOLD SHOULD DIFFER BY PURPOSE, WHILE ONE IS PUBLISHED: `While for certain purposes a higher sensitivity (lower score) may be preferable (eg, general population survey to determine the public health burden of gout for resource planning), a higher specificity (higher score) may be desirable for others (eg, genetic association studies in which accurate phenotyping is critical).` One number ships; the paper names two uses that want different ones Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | limitations[1] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | AND THE CRITERIA DO NOT TRANSFER TO ANOTHER POPULATION: `classification criteria are not intended to characterise the severity of disease, but only its presence. Additionally, classification criteria should be applied only to the intended population - those who meet the entry criteria. Performance characteristics of any classification criteria set will necessarily be altered if the criteria are applied to those other than the intended population.` The sensitivity and specificity are properties of a pairing, not of the criteria Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | limitations[2] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | AND THE GOLD STANDARD IS NOT USABLE ON MOST PATIENTS: `Quotation withheld.` The reference against which everything is measured cannot be obtained where most of the cases are Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | limitations[3] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| controls | excluding response to treatment, family history and risk factors/comorbidities from the criteria Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: a definition that contains its own correlates, which 'would preclude future studies evaluating their association with gout' · outcome: held | controls[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| controls | not assessing the new criteria on the sufficient criterion (MSU positivity) when comparing performance Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: the circularity that makes several existing criteria sets '100% sensitive by definition' · outcome: held | controls[1] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| controls | a threshold identification exercise in which the panel judged willingness to enrol 47 paper cases into a Phase 3 trial, run separately from the statistical cut-off Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: a threshold set only by maximising the sum of sensitivity and specificity, with no clinical meaning attached · outcome: held | controls[2] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| controls | validating the final criteria in the one-third of the SUGAR data set never used in any earlier analysis Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: performance measured on the data that produced the weights · outcome: held | controls[3] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| concepts | classification criteria Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: classification criteria | concepts[0] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | diagnosis Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: diagnosis | concepts[1] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | risk factors Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: risk factors | concepts[2] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | features of gout Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: features of gout | concepts[3] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | lack of imaging data Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: lack of imaging data | concepts[4] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | negative results Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: negative results | concepts[5] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | gold standard Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: gold standard | concepts[6] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | preliminary Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: preliminary | concepts[7] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| senses | `classification criteria` (this paper's sense) - a rule for `enabling STANDARDISED ASSEMBLY OF A RELATIVELY HOMOGENEOUS GROUP of individuals with the disease of interest for enrolment into studies`, explicitly NOT a diagnostic rule and explicitly not a severity scale Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| senses | `entry criterion` / `sufficient criterion` / `exclusion criterion` - three slots defined before any domain: who the criteria apply to, what classifies without scoring, and what rules the disease out. The third was deliberately left EMPTY Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[1] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| senses | `gold standard` (gout) - MSU crystal positivity: high specificity, inadequate feasibility and sensitivity, and therefore `not a feasible universal standard` Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[2] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| senses | `typical symptomatic episode` - and the SAME criterion reads differently in the twin: `irrespective of ANTI-INFLAMMATORY treatment ... <24 h` in Annals, `irrespective of ANTIINFLAMMATORY treatment ... <24 hours` in Arthritis & Rheumatology. One criterion, two orthographies, two DOIs Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[3] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| senses | `preliminary criteria` - A PROVISIONAL LABEL THAT NEVER EXPIRED: `the most widely used being the 1977 American Rheumatism Association (now the American College of Rheumatology (ACR)) preliminary criteria`. The word `preliminary` is still in the name in 2015, the issuing society has since changed its own name, and the criteria remain the field's default. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[4] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | extends → the 1977 American Rheumatism Association preliminary criteria for the classification of the acute arthritis of primary gout, whose gold standard was PHYSICIAN DIAGNOSIS rather than crystal status, and the Rome, New York, Mexico and Netherlands criteria sets measured alongside it Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_relations[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | extends → ITS OWN TWIN: the identical criteria set published simultaneously as doi:10.1002/art.39254 in Arthritis & Rheumatology (PMC4566153). Same 22 authors, same year, same criteria, BRITISH spelling here and AMERICAN there - one artefact with two DOIs and two citation counts Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_relations[1] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | classification criteria —distinct-from→ diagnosis Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. the relation itself is separately evidenced · strength of the relation: 0.95 · note: 'It should be…' A definition naming a use it will not support, in the place a reader is most likely to misuse it · the relation stated: the criteria are explicitly NOT INTENDED for making a diagnosis; aspiration remains essential for that also in: classification criteria · diagnosis | concept_edges[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | risk factors —distinct-from→ features of gout Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. the relation itself is separately evidenced · strength of the relation: 0.95 · note: 'The last three…' The distinction is drawn to protect a future measurement, not to describe the world · the relation stated: risk factors are ASSOCIATED WITH gout but are NOT FEATURES OF IT, and admitting them to the definition would make their association unstudiable also in: risk factors · features of gout | concept_edges[1] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | lack of imaging data —same-as→ negative results Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. the relation itself is separately evidenced · strength of the relation: 0.85 · note: 'In the discrete-choice experiments…' Weight 0.85: this is an equivalence IN THE INSTRUMENT, adopted so the criteria work where imaging is unavailable - not a claim that an absent test and a negative test are the same thing. It is our own 'absent-not-in-staged-text' collapse, made deliberately and for a stated reason · the relation stated: the two are weighted IDENTICALLY in the scoring system, so the criteria cannot distinguish a test not done from a test that found nothing
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but the span says the lack of imaging data was WEIGHTED THE SAME as negative results; same-as is loose. also in: lack of imaging data · negative results | concept_edges[2] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | A FEATURE EXCLUDED FROM A DEFINITION TO PROTECT A FUTURE MEASUREMENT: `inclusion of risk factors or comorbidities in the definition of gout would preclude future studies evaluating their association with gout` Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | AND A PUBLISHED SENSITIVITY OF 1.00 THAT IS AN ARTEFACT OF THE DEFINITION: `For some existing criteria sets, presence of MSU crystals alone is sufficient to fulfil criteria; they are therefore 100% sensitive by definition ... the criteria set was not assessed in that regard, to avoid circularity` Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[1] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | AND EVIDENCE AGAINST MEMBERSHIP CARRIES A NEGATIVE WEIGHT: `two categories that elicit negative scores ... MSU negative, 2 POINTS ARE SUBTRACTED ... serum urate <4 mg/dL, 4 POINTS ARE SUBTRACTED ... these findings reduce the probability of gout` Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[2] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | AND A TEST NOT DONE SCORES THE SAME AS A TEST THAT FOUND NOTHING: `Quotation withheld` Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[3] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | AND TWO INDEPENDENT ROUTES REACHED ONE THRESHOLD: `The score at which the majority considered an individual as having gout or not fell at the same threshold as that identified as the cut-off score that maximised the sum of sensitivity and specificity` Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[4] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | MSU crystal positivity is highly specific, but its feasibility and sensitivity may be inadequate, so it is not a feasible universal standard Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[5] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | `enabling standardised assembly of a relatively homogeneous group of individuals with the disease of interest for enrolment into such studies` - and `not intended for use in making a diagnosis in a clinical setting` Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: classification criteria | content_tags.definitions[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | `features such as a gold standard that alone could classify gout without further need to apply the classification criteria scoring system` - and the reason the new criteria are not scored against it Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: sufficient criterion | content_tags.definitions[1] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | `there would be no exclusion criteria because gout can often coexist with other diseases and because synovial fluid microscopy can sometimes fail to disclose MSU crystals in patients with gout` Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: exclusion criteria | content_tags.definitions[2] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | `with no single criteria set having excellent sensitivity and specificity` - and the 100% figures are the circular ones Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | evidence against membership, subtracted from the score Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[1] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | the largest single weight in the criteria set is a NEGATIVE one Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[2] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | the pair the whole design optimises, with specificity deliberately favoured because `investigators need to have confidence that individuals who are enrolled in a study truly have the condition of interest` Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: sensitivity and specificity | content_tags.statistics[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | the only mandatory element of the score, taken as `The highest value irrespective of timing`, and the one whose low value subtracts four points Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: serum urate | content_tags.variables[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
Tags that could not be placed in the text:
What was deliberately not tagged, and why, is recorded per paper by the tagger. Where a paper has no such record, this page says so rather than implying that nothing was declined.