Rheumatoid Atlantoaxial Subluxation Can Be Prevented by Intensive Use of Traditional Disease Modifying Antirheumatic Drugs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the 5-year incidence of cervical spine disorders in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treated by 2 different disease modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) strategies. METHODS: In a national, multicenter, prospective FIN-RACo-trial, a cohort of 199 patients with early, clinically active RA was randomly assigned to treatment with a combination of 3 DMARD and prednisolone (Combi group) or with a single DMARD (Single group) with or without prednisolone, aiming to induce remission. After 2 years, the DMARD therapy was unrestricted. Lateral view cervical spine radiographs during full flexion and extension were taken at the 5-year followup visits. The presence of anterior atlantoaxial subluxation (aAAS), atlantoaxial impaction (AAI), and subaxial subluxation (SAS) was assessed in the 149 patients with radiographs available (80 Single and 69 Combi). RESULTS: At the 5-year visits, aAAS, AAI, and SAS were found in 13 (9%), 6 (4%), and 9 (6%) patients, respectively. The corresponding Single/Combi group ratios were 11/2, 5/1, and 5/4. Of the baseline data, only poor physical function [Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ); p = 0.024] and Single treatment strategy (p = 0.019) were significantly associated with aAAS. Worse HAQ scores and Disease Activity Score 28 values were found in patients who developed aAAS during the 5-year followup. CONCLUSION: RA patients with sustained clinical disease activity and poor HAQ are at increased risk of developing aAAS. The development of aAAS during the first 5 years of RA was rare among the patients treated with a combination of DMARD for at least 2 years from the diagnosis. Intensive treatment with traditional DMARD prevents or retards the development of aAAS in patients with recent-onset RA.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".