Investigating the Validity of the Minimal Disease Activity State for Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis Treated with Abatacept
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To validate the definitions of minimal disease activity (MDA) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and to compare abatacept to control with respect to patients attaining a state of MDA. METHODS: Two randomized controlled trials comparing abatacept to control in patients with RA were considered: ATTAIN and AIM. Core set measures, Disease Activity Score 28-joint count (DAS28), and, for AIM, radiographic scores were available. The core set and DAS-based definitions for MDA were calculated and the number of patients in the treatment groups meeting the definitions was compared to determine sensitivity of the criteria to treatment differences and patient severity. The number of times achieving MDA was compared to the change in Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ), and for the AIM study compared to change in radiographic scores. RESULTS: For both definitions of MDA, the change in radiographic scores showed a continual decrease in progression the more often a patient was in MDA. The change in HAQ, for both studies, showed a similar consistent improvement - the longer a patient was in MDA, then the better the HAQ score. Significantly more patients in the abatacept group met the core set and DAS-based definition of MDA than in the control group. CONCLUSION: The presence and persistence of MDA was associated with slowing of radiographic progression and improvement in the HAQ, providing support for discriminative and predictive validity of the measure. The MDA results were consistent with other efficacy analyses indicating a treatment advantage for abatacept.
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 | 0.015 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".