MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Long-Term Use of Azathioprine in Patients with Psoriatic Arthritis

2001· article· en· W2050168849 on OpenAlexaff
Julietta C.T. Lee, Dafna D. Gladman, Catherine T. Schentag, Richard J. Cook

Bibliographic record

VenueJCR Journal of Clinical Rheumatology · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAutoimmune and Inflammatory Disorders Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health NetworkToronto Western Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePsoriatic arthritisTolerabilityMethotrexatePsoriasisAzathioprineRefractory (planetary science)Internal medicineDermatologySurgeryAdverse effectDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite the widespread use of methotrexate in the treatment of psoriatic arthritis (PsA), there are patients who are either refractory, develop toxicity to, or refuse to take methotrexate. In search of an alternative, we studied long-term tolerability of and clinical response to azathioprine (AZA) in PsA patients in comparison with matched controls and followed them in a longitudinal clinic. Twenty-eight of 485 patients followed prospectively between 1978 and 1998 took AZA during their clinic follow-ups. Eighteen of the 28 took AZA for 12 months and were included in the study. AZA was well tolerated by most patients, even in the long-term. Although there was no statistically significant difference in the reduction in number of actively inflamed joints between AZA-treated patients and controls, and AZA was no better in preventing progression of damage, AZA was still as good as the other medications. Consequently, AZA was often given to individuals who had not responded to other medications in the past. We provide illustrative case reports in which AZA also controlled psoriasis, and we conclude that, whereas AZA is not superior to other medications in the treatment of PsA, it may be safely used and it provides an alternative therapy for patients with 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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.103
Threshold uncertainty score0.542

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.043
GPT teacher head0.366
Teacher spread0.323 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations38
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJCR Journal of Clinical RheumatologySame topicAutoimmune and Inflammatory Disorders ResearchFrench-language works237,207