Longterm therapy of psoriatic arthritis: intramuscular gold or methotrexate?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and toxicity of methotrexate (MTX) and intramuscular (im) gold in the treatment of psoriatic arthritis (PsA). METHODS: Medical records from all patients with PsA attending the gold and MTX clinics at the Vancouver Mary Pack Arthritis Centre between 1971 and 1995 were reviewed. The odds of a clinical response (defined as at least a 50% reduction in active joint count from initial to last visit or for at least 6 months) and the relative risk of discontinuing therapy associated with treatment (MTX or im gold) were calculated after controlling for significant baseline covariates, using logistic regression and Cox regression analyses, respectively. The frequency of side effects and the reasons for treatment cessation were also compared between treatment groups. RESULTS: Eighty-seven patients received 111 treatment courses: 43 of MTX and 68 of im gold. The likelihood of a clinical response was 8.9 times greater (95% CI 1.8; 44.0) with MTX than im gold. Patients were 5 times more likely (95% CI 2.4; 10.4) to discontinue therapy with im gold than with MTX. No major toxicity occurred and frequency of side effects was similar for both treatments. Patients with a longer duration of PsA prior to initiation of study treatment were less likely to achieve a clinical response. CONCLUSION: MTX and im gold are safe and well tolerated in the treatment of PsA. In our experience. MTX was superior to im gold in the likelihood of achieving a clinical response and in permitting an individual to continue longterm treatment. Our data suggest that earlier treatment may be associated with a better response.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".