Equivalent Responses to Disease-modifying Antirheumatic Drugs Initiated at Any Time During the First 15 Months After Symptom Onset in Patients with Seropositive Rheumatoid Arthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate responses by time to initiation of nonbiologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARD) in a DMARD-naive cohort of patients with early seropositive rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: Subjects were categorized by the time from symptom onset to the first DMARD use (median 5.7 months, range 0.6-15.9). Subjects who started their first DMARD within 5 months of symptom onset were compared to subjects who started after 5 months. Disease Activity Scores (DAS-44) and total Sharp Score (TSS) progression rates were analyzed using Wilcoxon rank-sum and chi-square tests; multiple linear regression analysis adjusted for potential covariates. The slope of the least-squares regression line was calculated to estimate the annualized TSS progression rates. RESULTS: Of 233 RA patients, 76% were female and mean age was 50 (SD 13) years. At DMARD start, DAS-44 was similar in all subsets within the 0.6 to 15 months' duration between symptom onset and DMARD initiation. Erosion scores tended to be higher in those who started DMARD later, but Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI) scores were higher in those who started DMARD earlier. During the 2 years after DMARD initiation, improvements in HAQ-DI and DAS-44 were similar in the various duration subsets, with about 25% ever achieving DAS remission (DAS < 1.6). Radiographic progression tended to be numerically but not statistically more rapid in the earlier subsets. CONCLUSION: Following initiation of nonbiologic DMARD therapy at various times within 15 months of symptom onset, improvements of DAS-44, HAQ-DI, remission rate, and radiographic progression rate were similar, although higher baseline erosion scores were present in those with later initiation of DMARD.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".