MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2136172152 · doi:10.3899/jrheum.111341

Remission in Early Rheumatoid Arthritis — A Comparison of New ACR/EULAR Remission Criteria to Established Criteria

2012· article· en· W2136172152 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Bindee Kuriya, Ye Sun, Gilles Boire, Boulos Haraoui, Carol Hitchon, Janet Pope, John Thorne, Edward Keystone, Vivian P. Bykerk

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Rheumatology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRheumatoid Arthritis Research and Therapies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoMount Sinai Hospital
FundersPfizer CanadaAmgen CanadaPfizerAmgen
KeywordsMedicineRheumatismRheumatoid arthritisRheumatologyInternal medicinePhysical therapyCohortArthritis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To describe the frequency of remission in an early rheumatoid arthritis (ERA) cohort. METHODS: The frequency of remission was evaluated, based on 8 definitions including the Boolean-based American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism (ACR/EULAR) criteria. RESULTS: Of 369 patients, remission at 12 months ranged from 18% according to the ACR/EULAR clinical trial criteria to 40% according to the 28-joint Disease Activity Score (DAS28) < 2.6. Higher tender joint count, swollen joint count, and physician global scores were seen for DAS28-based definitions, and patient global assessment (PtGA) scores were almost 5-fold higher for DAS28 remission. CONCLUSION: Remission is achievable in ERA but its frequency differs according to the remission definition applied. Adoption of the new ACR/EULAR definition will limit the number classified as in remission, especially if the PtGA criteria are rated high for reasons other than inflammatory arthritis.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.044

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.317 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations39
Published2012
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of RheumatologySame topicRheumatoid Arthritis Research and TherapiesFrench-language works237,207