Assessment in Ankylosing Spondylitis International Working Group/Spondylitis Association of America recommendations for conducting clinical trials in ankylosing spondylitis
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Within the field of research in spondylarthritis, there has been an increasing interest in proposing new sets of recommendations, integrating current knowledge, for conducting clinical research in ankylosing spondylitis (AS). In May 2001, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) requested assistance from all interested outside parties in the development of a document for pharmaceutical and medical-device industries that would provide guidance on the approval of drugs, biologic products, and devices for the treatment of AS. Both the ASsessment in Ankylosing Spondylitis (ASAS) International Working Group and the Spondylitis Association of America (SAA; a patient advocacy organization) expressed interest in the development of the document and formed a steering committee. Members of this coalition held a consensus meeting to provide written recommendations that could serve as a basis for the FDA guidance document for AS. This document may serve a broader goal of providing recommendations on trial design and outcome assessment in AS for the rheumatology community. Prior work of the ASAS International Working Group provided a basis for development of the document. The ASAS International Working Group and the SAA formed a steering committee that identified 6 topics on which to focus: scope of the disease, definition of claims, assessment of signs and symptoms, assessment of function, assessment of structural damage, and trial design. These topics reflected the structure of FDA guidance documents for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and osteoarthritis (OA). Planning committees corresponding to each of the topics were identified by the steering committee and prepared background information based on literature review and consensus work already done by the ASAS International Working Group as well as the personal expertise of the group members. Members of these committees are listed in Appendix A. Based on this information, each group made a proposal for further discussion of its topic, at a public meeting that was held on October 30 and 31, 2002, in Bethesda, Maryland. This meeting was convened to permit interested parties the opportunity to review and comment on the draft criteria developed by the planning committees and was attended by 90 representatives, as follows: 45 from the ASAS International Working Group, 23 from the SAA, 15 from pharmaceutical companies, and 11 from government (the FDA and the National Institutes of Health). After wide advertisement in the rheumatology community, the interested parties were self-selected. No formal voting occurred during the public meeting, but there was open communication regarding various aspects of the topics. All discussions were taped, and the tapes were transcribed. Based on these transcriptions, the chair of the planning committee for each topic produced a summary with conclusions and recommendations, and this was again discussed by the steering Desiree van der Heijde, MD, PhD: University Hospital Maastricht, and the Care and Public Health Research Institute of the University Maastricht, Maastricht, The Netherlands; Maxime Dougados, MD, PhD: Universite Rene Descartes, Hopital Cochin, Paris, France; John Davis, MD, MPH: University of California, San Francisco; Michael H. Weisman, MD, David S. Hallegua, MD: CedarsSinai Medical Center, and University of California, Los Angeles School of Medicine; Walter Maksymowych, FRCP: University of Alberta, Alberta, Edmonton, Canada; Jurgen Braun, MD: Rheumazentrum Ruhrgebiet, Herne, Germany, and Free University, Berlin, Germany; Jane Bruckel, RN, BSN: Spondylitis Association of America, Sherman Oaks, California. Address correspondence and reprint requests to Desiree van der Heijde, MD, PhD, University Hospital Maastricht, Department of Internal Medicine/Rheumatology, PO Box 5800, 6202 AZ Maastricht, The Netherlands. E-mail: dhe@sint.azm.nl. Submitted for publication January 6, 2004; accepted in revised form October 26, 2004.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,250 | 0,252 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,004 | 0,008 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,011 | 0,008 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,004 | 0,006 |
| Communication savante | 0,014 | 0,007 |
| Science ouverte | 0,009 | 0,008 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,020 | 0,021 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,017 | 0,023 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».