Consensus treatment plans for new‐onset systemic juvenile idiopathic arthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: There is wide variation in therapeutic approaches to systemic juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) among North American rheumatologists. Understanding the comparative effectiveness of the diverse therapeutic options available for treatment of systemic JIA can result in better health outcomes. The Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance (CARRA) developed consensus treatment plans and standardized assessment schedules for use in clinical practice to facilitate such studies. METHODS: Case-based surveys were administered to CARRA members to identify prevailing treatments for new-onset systemic JIA. A 2-day consensus conference in April 2010 employed modified nominal group technique to formulate preliminary treatment plans and determine important data elements for collection. Followup surveys were employed to refine the plans and assess clinical acceptability. RESULTS: The initial case-based survey identified significant variability among current treatment approaches for new-onset systemic JIA, underscoring the utility of standardized plans to evaluate comparative effectiveness. We developed 4 consensus treatment plans for the first 9 months of therapy, as well as case definitions and clinical and laboratory monitoring schedules. The 4 treatment regimens included glucocorticoids only, or therapy with methotrexate, anakinra, or tocilizumab, with or without glucocorticoids. This approach was approved by >78% of the CARRA membership. CONCLUSION: Four standardized treatment plans were developed for new-onset systemic JIA. Coupled with data collection at defined intervals, use of these treatment plans will create the opportunity to evaluate comparative effectiveness in an observational setting to optimize initial management of systemic JIA.
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 | 0.035 | 0.063 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".