TNFa inhibition in anti-Ro/SSA positive patients with rheumatoid arthritis: clinical and immunological effects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To analyse efficacy and safety of anti-TNFalpha treatment in 17 patients with rheumatoid arthritis (AR) and anti-Ro antibodies, in order to detect difference in clinical and immunological response. METHODS: 322 patients, affected by RA and treated with anti-TNFalpha drugs, were considered, searching every 6-12 months ANA, anti-dsDNA and anti-ENA antibodies. Seventeen were anti-Ro positive and 305 anti-Ro negative before starting treatment. RESULTS: Anti-Ro positive subjects showed active arthritis at baseline (mean DAS: 5), with frequent extra-articular features, such as ocular and oral sicca symptoms. They showed rapid and stable improvement during the treatment, with-out significant difference compared to anti-Ro negative group. A good clinical Eular response was shown in 46% of anti-Ro negative subjects, steady stable during time. On the contrary, fewer anti-Ro positive patients seem to be "good" responders. RA remission (DAS <1,6) was achieved in 9-25% of anti-Ro positive and 21-29% of anti-Ro negative, without significant difference. Antinuclear antibodies tend to increase in both groups, during the time. Anti-DNA increased to 40% of anti-Ro positive sera since 6th month, while they slightly increased in first 12 months in anti-Ro negative ones, then decreased to baseline value. No differences were shown about the frequency and reasons of anti-TNFalpha withdrawal, except for cutaneous lupus-like disease, more detected in anti-Ro positive group. CONCLUSIONS: Anti-TNFalpha drugs are effective in anti-Ro positive RA as well as other RA patients. Anti-DNA positivity and lupus-like disease were more frequently observed in anti-Ro positive group.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".