Defining remission in rheumatoid arthritis: Results of an initial american college of rheumatology/european league against rheumatism consensus conference
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Due to advances in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) therapies over the last few years, an increasing proportion of patients are able to achieve a state of remission. However, the definition of remission is unclear. Currently, randomized controlled trials around the world use different remission definitions and consequently measure different aspects of a patient's disease state. The need for a uniform definition of remission is vital for research findings to be correctly interpreted. METHODS: The American College of Rheumatology (ACR) constituted a committee that included international clinical researchers, trialists, and clinical epidemiologists in order to redefine remission in RA. This group was asked to study current definitions of remission, explore the theoretical underpinning of the concept of remission, and develop a research agenda that would inform future work in the development of an ACR definition of remission. RESULTS: In its first meeting, the committee preferred to develop a strict definition, implying no or very low disease activity. Such a definition would need to be validated against long-term outcome, e.g., physical function and damage. CONCLUSION: The committee decided to consider both a definition for trials and a modified version for clinical practice. Since the first meeting, the ACR and the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) have decided to sponsor this initiative as an official ACR/EULAR collaboration.
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 | 0.030 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".