Prognostic Factors of Radiological Damage in Rheumatoid Arthritis: A 10-year Retrospective Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: to describe the longterm clinical and radiological outcomes in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in a cohort in northwestern Greece; and to investigate predictive factors of radiological damage at the 10-year followup in patients with RA. METHODS: we studied the disease course and outcome of 144 patients with RA and radiographs of the hands and wrists available at baseline and at 10 years. Baseline measurements and time-averaged measures of swollen joint count (SJC) and inflammatory markers [erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) and C-reactive protein (CRP)] were tested in univariate analysis, and then those presenting a statistically significant association with either Larsen score at 10 years or annual progression rate were included in 2 logistic regression models in order to determine relevant independent prognostic factors. RESULTS: a significant clinical improvement was noted, associated with a decrease of inflammatory markers along the timepoints. Larsen score and the number of erosive joints were increased. In the univariate analysis, both final Larsen score at 10 years and accelerated annual radiological progression rate were significantly associated with baseline radiographic measurements (Larsen score and number of erosive joints), the presence of autoantibodies [anticyclic citrullinated peptide antibodies (anti-CCP) and rheumatoid factor of IgA and IgM isotype], disease duration, and time-averaged measures of ESR, CRP, and SJC. In the logistic regression analysis, the baseline Larsen score, anti-CCP antibodies, and time-averaged CRP presented significant and independent associations with Larsen score at 10 years. An accelerated annual radiological progression rate was also predicted by baseline Larsen score and time-averaged measures of SJC and CRP. CONCLUSION: despite clinical improvement, the radiologic progression of RA continues over time, because of the underlying inflammatory process. Baseline radiographic damage, anti-CCP antibodies, and time-averaged CRP constitute the main predictive factors of poor radiologic outcome in the long term.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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".