Periarticular Bone Gain at Proximal Interphalangeal Joints and Changes in Bone Turnover Markers in Response to Tumor Necrosis Factor Inhibitors in Rheumatoid and Psoriatic Arthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and psoriatic arthritis (PsA) are characterized by periarticular bone erosion; periarticular bone formation is a feature in PsA. The effect of anti-tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α) on periarticular bone remodeling is unclear in both diseases. Our aim was to assess the response of bone turnover markers (BTM) and hand bone mineral density (BMD) to anti-TNF over 3 years in RA and PsA. METHODS: We measured serum bone-specific alkaline phosphatase (bone ALP), procollagen type-I N-propeptide (PINP), intact osteocalcin, C-terminal cross-linking telopeptides (CTX-I), urinary N-terminal cross-linking telopeptide of type-I collagen (NTX-I), and free deoxypyridinoline crosslinks (fDPD) at baseline, 1, 12, and 36 months. BMD measurements (hands/spine/hip) were obtained at 3 timepoints. RESULTS: We recruited 62 patients (RA 35; PsA 27). BTM correlated significantly with hand BMD but not with central BMD. Low hand BMD was associated with RA and increased BTM. Following anti-TNF therapy, hip BMD declined while spine and hand BMD were unchanged. Periarticular BMD at proximal interphalangeal (PIP) joints increased while it decreased at metacarpophalangeal joints. Bone ALP increased steadily and was always higher in PsA. PINP and intact osteocalcin increased to a lesser extent, but resorption markers did not change. CONCLUSION: At baseline, hand BMD was inversely associated with BTM. Bone formation rather than resorption markers better showed the bone response to anti-TNF. Despite a lack of effect on central BMD, the modest effect of anti-TNF on PIP BMD may provide evidence that BTM reflect specifically bone remodeling activity at periarticular sites of inflammation in RA and PsA.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".