Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this issue of The Journal , Keystone, et al publish a 10-year prospective trial: a remarkable feat given the myriad difficulties of completing clinical trials these days1. It is the longterm extension (LTE) of the PREMIER trial, and a fairly large number of patients (250, or about 30%) complete the 10-year followup. The authors clearly concede the limitations of all LTE trials, most importantly that they are essentially completers’ analyses. Very little can be learned from those patients not completing the trial, and any and all conclusions must be interpreted in the context that they are only about those patients who presumably did well and therefore continued in the study. This article does successfully address these inherent issues. The PREMIER trial was more interesting than some of the similar trials conducted at about the same time because the double-blinded portion was longer than most at 2 years, and there were 3 arms; methotrexate (MTX), adalimumab (ADA), and the combination of the 2 (MTX + ADA)2. The patients in the study have early, MTX-naive, and very aggressive disease, many with multiple erosions at baseline. This may be a different population than that seen in some very recent trials, and may not be typical of any rheumatologist’s rheumatoid arthritis (RA) practice today, and the authors acknowledge this possibility. Early disease in this article is defined as less than 3 years of disease without details as to whether this is from onset of symptoms, joint swelling, or time … Address correspondence to Dr. Cohen; E-mail: mcohen{at}rheumdoc.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 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 | 0.026 | 0.090 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.023 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.035 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.010 |
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".