Cartilage biomarkers in ankylosing spondylitis: Relationship to clinical variables and treatment response
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Ankylosing spondylitis (AS) is a progressive disease in which chronic inflammation can lead to extensive new bone formation throughout the spine. At present, few measures of the activity or extent of the disease are available. In this study, we sought to determine whether markers of cartilage synthesis and degradation could provide such quantitative measures. METHODS: Serum samples from 23 patients receiving infliximab treatment for AS were obtained at baseline and at weeks 2, 6, 14, and 22. Patients were stratified with respect to joint involvement and baseline levels of inflammatory markers, and responders were defined according to the Assessments in Ankylosing Spondylitis 20% criteria. Serial measurements of interferon-gamma, tumor necrosis factor alpha, transforming growth factor beta (TGFbeta), interleukin-10 (IL-10), and IL-1 were done at each time point. The following biomarkers were measured by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay: the proteoglycan aggrecan 846 epitope, a marker of cartilage turnover; C-propeptide of type II collagen (CPII), a biosynthesis marker; and the Col2-3/4(long mono) (C2C) and Col2-3/4(short) (C1-2C) neoepitopes, reflecting collagen cleavage of type II collagen and type I/type II collagen, respectively. RESULTS: At baseline, patients with AS demonstrated significant elevations in serum levels of CPII, the 846 epitope, and the CPII-to-C2C (CPII:C2C) ratio (but not C2C or C1-2C) compared with normal controls. Of the biomarkers examined, only CPII:C2C showed a correlation with the C-reactive protein (CRP) level. Among the biomarker-cytokine relationships, TGFbeta demonstrated a trend toward a positive correlation with the 846 epitope. CONCLUSION: In AS, elevated serum levels of CPII and the 846 epitope may be related to biosynthetic turnover of hyaline cartilage and the intervertebral discs but may also reflect progressive bone formation as a result of endochondral ossification. The correlation of the CPII:C2C ratio with CRP suggests that the CPII:C2C ratio might prove to be a useful marker of disease activity in AS.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".