Cost–effectiveness of tumor necrosis factor-α antagonists in rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis and ankylosing spondylitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The treatment of chronic arthritic diseases has undergone some dramatic changes over the past few years. In particular, a new class of drugs called the tumor necrosis factor-alpha antagonists has transformed the management of rheumatoid arthritis, and decision makers are now consid1ering their use in psoriatic arthritis and ankylosing spondylitis. Whilst short-term clinical trials suggest that tumor necrosis factor-alpha antagonists improve physical function and pain linked to disease activity, this class of drug has generated controversy owing to its substantial cost. Pharmacoeconomic studies conclude that tumor necrosis factor-alpha antagonists result in significant increases in health-related quality of life; however, the cost-effectiveness of this class of drug remains uncertain, particularly in the treatment of psoriatic arthritis and ankylosing spondylitis. This paper reviews pharmacoeconomic analyses examining the cost-effectiveness of tumor necrosis factor-alpha inhibitors in rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis or ankylosing spondylitis.
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 | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".