MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2051231161 · doi:10.3899/jrheum.130099

Adding New Perspectives to the Kaleidoscope of Remission Criteria in Rheumatoid Arthritis

2013· letter· en· W2051231161 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Margaret Ma, Andrew P. Cope, David L. Scott

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Rheumatology · 2013
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRheumatoid Arthritis Research and Therapies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRheumatoid arthritisSpontaneous remissionDiseaseSynovitisComplete remissionGold standard (test)RheumatologyInternal medicinePhysical therapyIntensive care medicinePediatricsAlternative medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Remission has many meanings. In some medical contexts it indicates lessened disease severity. In other contexts it implies the disease has disappeared. Concepts of remission in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) reflect both models. Some definitions indicate only low disease activity states. Other definitions suggest the absence of disease, with undetectable symptoms, signs, and disease markers. Critically, remission differs from “cure,” which implies RA will never return. Current opinion favors restricting remission to patients with either no or minimal synovitis, without longterm structural or functional sequelae. The seminal report by Pinals, et al in 1981 concluded “complete” RA remission indicates the “total absence of articular and extraarticular inflammation and immunological activities”1. However, many years later, uncertainties remain on how to define genuine remission states. The introduction of new therapeutic options and strategies over the past decade has made remission an achievable goal. An immediate consequence of this perspective is the need for an accurate and uniform way to identify remission. Although there are many definitions, remission does not yet have an internationally accepted gold standard. Remission criteria differ between studies, and remission rates vary depending on the remission criteria used. We have previously noted these variations2. Some remission criteria use categorical descriptions; the original American College of Rheumatology (ACR) remission criteria are one important example1. However, these criteria are very stringent and too few patients achieve this goal to make the definition a useful outcome to discriminate between patients in clinical trial settings, or to make it a realistic outcome in the routine clinic setting. Consequently, many variants have been described. Continuous composite measures are often used to define remission; the most commonly used are the low scores using the Disease Activity Score (DAS3) or its modifications such as DAS28–erythrocyte sedimentation rate (DAS-ESR) … Address correspondence to Dr. H.Y. Ma, Department of Rheumatology, GKT School of Medicine, Weston Education Centre, King's College London, 10 Cutcombe Road, London SE5 9RS, UK. E-mail: margaret.ma{at}nhs.net

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.050
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.088
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.050
Threshold uncertainty score0.262

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0500.088
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0060.006
Science and technology studies0.0020.023
Scholarly communication0.0080.023
Open science0.0060.006
Research integrity0.0090.033
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.275 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations2
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Rheumatology→Same topicRheumatoid Arthritis Research and Therapies→French-language works237,207→