Correlation of Radiographic Progression with the Cumulative Activity of Synovitis Estimated by Power Doppler Ultrasound in Rheumatoid Arthritis: Difference Between Patients Treated with Methotrexate and Those Treated with Biological Agents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Our prospective study aimed to demonstrate that the cumulative synovial power Doppler (PD) ultrasound scores correlate with radiographic progression better than conventional measures in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). We also investigated the difference between antirheumatic agents. METHODS: Sixty-nine patients with RA who had recently received either methotrexate (MTX; n = 23), tumor necrosis factor (TNF) antagonists (n = 28), or tocilizumab (TCZ; n = 18) were enrolled. Patients underwent clinical, laboratory, and ultrasonographic assessment at baseline, 12 weeks, and 24 weeks. Radiographic damage was evaluated using van der Heijde modified total Sharp score (TSS) at baseline and 24 weeks. RESULTS: Fifty-seven patients continued the same treatment regimen for 24 weeks and completed the study, and 21 patients (36.8%) showed radiographic progression during the study period. In all patients, ΔTSS significantly correlated both with cumulative 28-joint Disease Activity Score-C-reactive protein (DAS28-CRP; ρ = 0.342, p = 0.009) and cumulative total PD scores (ρ = 0.357, p = 0.006). In MTX-treated patients, cumulative total PD scores significantly correlated with ΔTSS (ρ = 0.679, p = 0.004), whereas cumulative DAS28-CRP did not (ρ = 0.487, p = 0.056). However, cumulative total PD scores did not correlate with ΔTSS in TNF antagonist-treated or TCZ-treated patients. CONCLUSION: Our data confirm the evidence that synovial PD activity more accurately reflects active synovial inflammation (which actually causes joint destruction) than do conventional measures in patients treated with MTX. Our data also indicate that TNF antagonists can inhibit short-term radiographic progression in the presence of active synovitis.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".