Treatment with Biologic Agents Improves the Prognosis of Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis and Amyloidosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Reactive amyloid A (AA) amyloidosis is a serious and life-threatening systemic complication of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). We evaluated the safety of therapy with anti-tumor necrosis factor and anti-interleukin 6 biologic agents in RA patients with reactive AA amyloidosis, together with prognosis and hemodialysis (HD)-free survival, in comparison with patients with AA amyloidosis without such therapy. METHODS: One hundred thirty-three patients with an established diagnosis of reactive AA amyloidosis participated in the study. Clinical data were assessed from patient records at the time of amyloid detection and administration of biologics. Survival was calculated from the date when amyloid was first demonstrated histologically or the date when biologic therapy was started until the time of death or to the end of 2010 for surviving patients. Patients who had started HD were selected for inclusion only after the presence of amyloid was demonstrated. RESULTS: Fifty-three patients were treated with biologic agents (biologic group) and 80 were not (nonbiologic group). Survival rate was significantly higher in the biologic group than in the nonbiologic group. Nine patients in the biologics group and 33 in the nonbiologic group started HD. Biologic therapy had a tendency for reduced risk of initiation of HD without any statistical significance. CONCLUSION: Patients with amyloidosis have a higher mortality rate, but the use of biologic agents can reduce risk of death. The use of biologics may not significantly influence the HD-free survival rate.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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".