MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2107156900 · doi:10.3899/jrheum.090673

Anti-Cyclic Citrullinated Peptide Antibody versus HAQ/MDHAQ: Comparing Apples and Oranges?

2009· letter· en· W2107156900 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Vivian P. Bykerk

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Rheumatology · 2009
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRheumatoid Arthritis Research and Therapies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRheumatoid arthritisRheumatoid factorBiomarkerInternal medicineAntibodyArthritisTest (biology)Physical therapyImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pincus, et al in the this issue of The Journal address the contentious issue of where anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide antibody (anti-CCP) testing belongs, if at all, in routine clinical practice1. The extension of this line of thought is whether or not this test is cost-effective or of real clinical utility to the practicing rheumatologist. The authors address the question whether testing for anti-CCP will improve patient outcomes or be of value in making appropriate clinical therapeutic decisions at the bedside above and beyond the evaluation of function in a systematic fashion. They raise the question whether a composite patient-related non-biologically-based score such as the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ)/Multidimensional (MD) HAQ should trump a laboratory test when evaluating a patient with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). While arguing for the use of this test, the authors note that “Anti-CCP provides a significantly higher hazard ratio than rheumatoid factor (RF) to identify people with early arthritis who will develop progressive disease”2,3, based on greater pooled specificity of 95% in a metaanalysis of 37 studies, compared to 85% in 50 studies of RF for RA3. They also argue that the presence of these antibodies may favor the use of treatments that are proven to be highly effective in subsets of patients who are positive for anti-citrullinated peptide antibodies (ACPA), which include anti-CCP4. Perhaps we should not compare apples with oranges, as anti-CCP is a good biomarker predicting sustained inflammatory arthritis and increased risk of erosions in early disease, whereas the HAQ (or other modified versions of the HAQ) is important for evaluating function and can be done repeatedly by the patient. The HAQ, however, does not necessarily perform well in early disease, given that functional impairment early on may be fully reversible5 and is … Address correspondence to Dr. Bykerk; E-mail: vbykerk{at}mtsinai.on.ca

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.037
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.052

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.037
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.005
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.002

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.277 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations4
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Rheumatology→Same topicRheumatoid Arthritis Research and Therapies→French-language works237,207→