phenomenon · claim-type · cross-domain-transfer · mechanism · claim-relation · replication-status · limitation — grounded in the full text| 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— “Gout is unlike other rheumatic diseases in that a gold standard assessment is available, that is, MSU crystal positivity. While this gold standard has high specificity, its feasibility and sensitivity may be inadequate, because of difficulty with aspiration of joints (particularly small ones) and/or examination of the sample under polarising… | |
| claim-type | method— “Once the domains and categories were defined, 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%. Any necessary revisions to the categories were made with subsequent repetition of… | |
| method — evidence | — “Once the domains and categories were defined, 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%. Any necessary revisions to the categories were made with subsequent repetition of… | |
| object of study — evidence | — “Classification criteria serve the purpose of enabling standardised assembly of a relatively homogeneous group of individuals with the disease of interest for enrolment into such studies.” | |
| research question — evidence | — “In a recent study in which the gold standard was MSU crystal status in synovial fluid or nodule aspirate among individuals with a broad range of diagnoses, the sensitivity of existing criteria sets 10–14 ranged from 57.6% to 100% (ie, 100% with MSU crystal identification as sufficient for classification as gout), whereas the specificity… | |
| contribution — evidence | — “A unique aspect of the new classification criteria is that 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 (<0.24 mmol/L), 4 points are subtracted from the total score. This approach… | |
| mechanism | 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— “The last three factors 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.” | mechanisms[0] |
| mechanism | AND THE SAME REFUSAL AGAIN, IN THE VALIDATION: `For some existing criteria sets, presence of MSU crystals alone is sufficient to fulfil criteria; they are therefore 100% sensitive by definition. The new gout classification criteria also have MSU positivity as sufficient criterion for classification, but the criteria set was not assessed in that regard, to avoid circularity.` 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— “For some existing criteria sets, presence of MSU crystals alone is sufficient to fulfil criteria; they are therefore 100% sensitive by definition. The new gout classification criteria also have MSU positivity as sufficient criterion for classification, but the criteria set was not assessed in that regard, to avoid circularity.” | mechanisms[1] |
| mechanism | 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— “A unique aspect of the new classification criteria is that 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 (<0.24 mmol/L), 4 points are subtracted from the total score. This approach… | mechanisms[2] |
| mechanism | AND A NEGATIVE TEST SCORES THE SAME AS NO TEST, DELIBERATELY: `In the discrete-choice experiments, the lack of imaging data was weighted the same as for studies performed with negative results, 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— “We also realised that some investigators may not have access to imaging and therefore aimed to develop criteria that would still perform well in the absence of imaging data. In the discrete-choice experiments, the lack of imaging data was weighted the same as for studies performed with negative results, supporting the validity of using the… | mechanisms[3] |
| mechanism | 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— “Once the domains and categories were defined, 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%. Any necessary revisions to the categories were made with subsequent repetition of… | mechanisms[4] |
| mechanism | 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— “Next, the expert panel performed a threshold identification exercise designed to assess the members’ willingness to enrol 47 paper cases, based on having sufficient confidence that the individual has gout, into a Phase 3 randomised clinical trial of a new urate-lowering agent with unclear efficacy and safety. The score at which the majority… | mechanisms[5] |
| mechanism | 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`— “Second, the classification was to apply to the patient's total disease experience, not to classify individual symptomatic episodes. Third, 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.” | mechanisms[6] |
| mechanism | AND THE EMPTY SLOT IS DELIBERATE, WITH ITS REASON: `The panel agreed that 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 for technical, sampling or treatment reasons.` A criteria set that declines to say what rules the disease out, because both the disease and the instrument allow exceptions— “The panel agreed that 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 for technical, sampling or treatment reasons.” | mechanisms[7] |
| mechanism | CRITERIA USED FOR DECADES OUTSIDE THE SCOPE THEIR AUTHORS DECLARED: `These preliminary criteria were intended for identifying the acute arthritis of gout and not necessarily for intercritical gout`. The stated scope was narrower than the use, and the correction comes 38 years later from a different body.— “These preliminary criteria were intended for identifying the acute arthritis of gout and not necessarily for intercritical gout” | mechanisms[8] |
| mechanism | AND A DEFINITION MADE OBSOLETE BY AN INSTRUMENT THAT DID NOT EXIST WHEN IT WAS WRITTEN: `Existing criteria for the classification of gout have suboptimal sensitivity and/or specificity, and were developed at a time when advanced imaging was not available.` The criteria did not become wrong; the measurable world grew - which is the same shape as haas2018 admitting i-IFTA because the population changed.— “Existing criteria for the classification of gout have suboptimal sensitivity and/or specificity, and were developed at a time when advanced imaging was not available” | mechanisms[9] |
| 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— “In a recent study in which the gold standard was MSU crystal status in synovial fluid or nodule aspirate among individuals with a broad range of diagnoses, the sensitivity of… | claim_relations[0] |
| 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 paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | claim_relations[1] |
| sense | `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 paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | senses[0] |
| sense | `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 paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | senses[1] |
| sense | `gold standard` (gout) - MSU crystal positivity: high specificity, inadequate feasibility and sensitivity, and therefore `not a feasible universal standard` Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | senses[2] |
| sense | `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 paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | senses[3] |
| sense | `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 paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | senses[4] |
| control | excluding response to treatment, family history and risk factors/comorbidities from the criteria — held Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. — rules out a definition that contains its own correlates, which 'would preclude future studies evaluating their association with gout' Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | controls[0] |
| control | not assessing the new criteria on the sufficient criterion (MSU positivity) when comparing performance — held Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. — rules out the circularity that makes several existing criteria sets '100% sensitive by definition' Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | controls[1] |
| control | 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 — held Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. — rules out a threshold set only by maximising the sum of sensitivity and specificity, with no clinical meaning attached Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | controls[2] |
| control | validating the final criteria in the one-third of the SUGAR data set never used in any earlier analysis — held Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. — rules out performance measured on the data that produced the weights Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | controls[3] |
| weight | 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 — 0.9 Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | claim_relations[0] |
| weight | 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 — 0.9 Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | claim_relations[1] |
| note | classification criteria —distinct-from→ diagnosis — 'It should be…' A definition naming a use it will not support, in the place a reader is most likely to misuse it Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concept_edges[0] |
| relation | classification criteria —distinct-from→ diagnosis — the criteria are explicitly NOT INTENDED for making a diagnosis; aspiration remains essential for that Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concept_edges[0] |
| weight | classification criteria —distinct-from→ diagnosis — 0.95 Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concept_edges[0] |
| note | risk factors —distinct-from→ features of gout — 'The last three…' The distinction is drawn to protect a future measurement, not to describe the world Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concept_edges[1] |
| relation | risk factors —distinct-from→ features of gout — risk factors are ASSOCIATED WITH gout but are NOT FEATURES OF IT, and admitting them to the definition would make their association unstudiable Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concept_edges[1] |
| weight | risk factors —distinct-from→ features of gout — 0.95 Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concept_edges[1] |
| audit | lack of imaging data —same-as→ negative results — 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. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concept_edges[2] |
| note | lack of imaging data —same-as→ negative results — '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 Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concept_edges[2] |
| relation | lack of imaging data —same-as→ negative results — the two are weighted IDENTICALLY in the scoring system, so the criteria cannot distinguish a test not done from a test that found nothing Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concept_edges[2] |
| weight | lack of imaging data —same-as→ negative results — 0.85 Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concept_edges[2] |
| outcome | control — held Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | controls[0] |
| outcome | control — held Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | controls[1] |
| outcome | control — held Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | controls[2] |
| outcome | control — held Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | controls[3] |
| limitation | THE DEFINITION DISCLAIMS THE USE EVERYONE WILL PUT IT TO: `It should be recognised that classification criteria are not intended for use in making A DIAGNOSIS IN A CLINICAL SETTING. 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 paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | limitations[0] |
| limitation | 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 paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | limitations[1] |
| limitation | 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 paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | limitations[2] |
| limitation | AND THE GOLD STANDARD IS NOT USABLE ON MOST PATIENTS: `Gout is unlike other rheumatic diseases in that a gold standard assessment is available, that is, MSU crystal positivity. While this gold standard has high specificity, its feasibility and sensitivity may be inadequate, because of difficulty with aspiration of joints (particularly small ones) and/or examination of the sample under polarising microscopy. Thus, although MSU crystal results are extremely helpful when positive, they are not a feasible universal standard.` The reference against which everything is measured cannot be obtained where most of the cases are Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | limitations[3] |
finding · quantity · variable · definition · key-term — grounded in the full text| finding | Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.findings[0] |
| finding | Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.findings[1] |
| finding | Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.findings[2] |
| finding | Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.findings[3] |
| finding | Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.findings[4] |
| finding | Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.findings[5] |
| quantity | sensitivity 57.6% to 100%, specificity 34.3% to 86.4% — Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.quantities[0] |
| quantity | -2 points — Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.quantities[1] |
| quantity | -4 points — Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.quantities[2] |
| variable | serum urate Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.variables[0] |
| definition | classification criteria Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.definitions[0] |
| definition | sufficient criterion Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.definitions[1] |
| definition | exclusion criteria Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.definitions[2] |
| concept | classification criteria — not defined in this paper's own words; the rule set this paper builds, for assembling study populations rather than for diagnosing patients Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[0] |
| concept | diagnosis — not defined in this paper's own words; the clinical act the criteria explicitly disclaim, and for which joint or tophus aspiration remains essential Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[1] |
| concept | risk factors — not defined in this paper's own words; excluded from the definition on purpose, because including them would make their association with the disease unstudiable Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[2] |
| concept | features of gout — not defined in this paper's own words; what the criteria are allowed to contain - the disease itself, not its correlates Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[3] |
| concept | lack of imaging data — not defined in this paper's own words; a test not performed, scored identically to a test performed and negative Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[4] |
| concept | negative results — not defined in this paper's own words; an imaging study performed and showing nothing, which the scoring system cannot distinguish from one never done Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[5] |
| concept | gold standard — not defined in this paper's own words; MSU crystal positivity - available, highly specific, and not feasible on most patients Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[6] |
| concept | preliminary — not defined in this paper's own words; the word attached to the 1977 gout criteria, STILL THE MOST WIDELY USED SET 38 YEARS LATER - a provisional label that outlived its provisionality Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[7] |
| sensitivity and specificity | Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.statistics[0] |
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.
Tag layer © the Meta-Tagging Project, CC BY 4.0. The paper text is © its authors/publisher
and is linked, not reproduced. Excerpts shown are short quotations for identification and verification.
· back to index
· concepts · authors
· עברית
© 2026 Shir Sivroni · ORCID 0009-0000-2597-2824