Infliximab treatment maintains employability in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of infliximab therapy on the employment status of patients with early rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: Methotrexate (MTX)-naive patients with active early RA were randomly allocated to receive MTX plus placebo or MTX plus infliximab (3 mg/kg or 6 mg/kg) at weeks 0, 2, and 6 and then every 8 weeks through week 46. Data for patients younger than age 65 years were included in the analyses. A patient was categorized as employable if he or she was employed or felt well enough to work if a job were available. RESULTS: The change in actual employment was not significantly different between patients receiving MTX plus infliximab and those receiving MTX plus placebo (0.5% versus 1.3%; P > 0.5). However, the proportion of patients whose status changed from employable at baseline to unemployable at week 54 was smaller in the group receiving MTX plus infliximab compared with that in the group receiving MTX alone (8% versus 14%; P = 0.05). Patients who were treated with infliximab plus MTX had a significantly greater likelihood of improvement rather than deterioration in employability (odds ratio 2.4; P < 0.001); this likelihood was not significantly greater in patients receiving MTX alone. The proportion of employed patients who lost workdays during the trial was smaller in the MTX plus infliximab group than in the MTX-alone group (P = 0.010). CONCLUSION: The actual employment rates among patients in the 2 treatment groups were not different. However, patients with early RA who were treated with MTX plus infliximab had a higher probability of maintaining their employability compared with those who were treated with MTX alone.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".