MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2056768892 · doi:10.1002/art.10262

A multicenter, randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled trial of adjuvant methotrexate treatment for giant cell arteritis

2002· article· en· W2056768892 on OpenAlexaff
Gary S. Hoffman, María C. Cid, David B. Hellmann, Loı̈c Guillevin, John H. Stone, John T. Schousboe, Pascal Cohen, Leonard H. Calabrese, Howard B. Dickler, Peter A. Merkel, Paul R. Fortin, John A. Flynn, Geri A. Locker, Kirk A. Easley, Eric S. Schned, Gene G. Hunder, Michael C. Sneller, Carol Tuggle, Howard J. Swanson, José Hernández‐Rodríguez, Alfons López‐Soto, Debora Bork, Diane B. Hoffman, Kenneth Kalunian, David Klashman, William S. Wilke, Raymond J. Scheetz, Brian F. Mandell, Barri J. Fessler, Gregory S. Kosmorsky, Richard A. Prayson, Raashid Luqmani, George Nuki, Euan McRorie, Yvonne Sherrer, Shawn Baca, B Walsh, Diane Ferland, Martin Soubrier, Hyon K. Choi, Wolfgang L. Gross, A Segal, Charles Ludivico, Xavier Puéchal

Bibliographic record

VenueArthritis & Rheumatism · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVasculitis and related conditions
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMontreal General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineGiant cell arteritisInternal medicineMethotrexatePlaceboPrednisoneMulticenter trialGastroenterologySurgeryRandomized controlled trialIncidence (geometry)VasculitisDiseaseMulticenter studyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Objective To evaluate treatment with methotrexate (MTX) in patients with newly diagnosed giant cell arteritis (GCA) to determine if MTX reduces GCA relapses and cumulative corticosteroid (CS) requirements and diminishes disease‐ and treatment‐related morbidity. Methods This was a multicenter, randomized, double‐blind study. Over 4 years, 16 centers from the International Network for the Study of Systemic Vasculitides enrolled patients with unequivocal GCA. The initial treatment was 1 mg/kg/day (≤60 mg every day) prednisone, plus either 0.15 mg/kg/week MTX (increased to 0.25 mg/kg/week, for a maximum weekly dosage of 15 mg) or placebo. Two physicians, both blinded to treatment allocation, evaluated each patient at every trial visit. One physician was responsible for providing global medical care. The other assessed GCA status according to a standard protocol. Treatment failure was defined as 2 distinct relapses or persistence of disease activity after the first relapse, in spite of increased CS therapy. Results Ninety‐eight patients were enrolled. No significant differences between treatment groups were noted with regard to age, frequency of positive findings on temporal artery biopsy (placebo 87%, MTX 79%), or comorbidities at the time of enrollment. The median dosage of MTX was 15 mg/week. The incidence of treatment failure was comparable between groups after 12 months: 57.5% in the MTX group failed treatment (95% confidence interval [95% CI] 41.6–73.4%) compared with 77.3% in the placebo group (95% CI 61.9–92.8%) (P = 0.26). In a Cox regression analysis, MTX was not associated with a reduced risk of treatment failure (relative risk 0.72; 95% CI 0.41–1.28). There were no significant differences between groups with regard to abnormal elevations of the erythrocyte sedimentation rate following initial remissions, serious morbidity due to GCA, cumulative CS dose, or treatment toxicity. In the MTX group, there were fewer cases of GCA relapse heralded by symptoms of isolated polymyalgia rheumatica (1 case versus 5 in the placebo group; P = 0.05). Conclusion The results of this randomized, multicenter trial do not support the adjunctive use of MTX to control disease activity or to decrease the cumulative dose and toxicity of CS in patients with GCA.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.250 · 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 designRandomized trial
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

Citations576
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArthritis & RheumatismSame topicVasculitis and related conditionsFrench-language works237,207