Predictors of Clinical Response and Radiographic Progression in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis Treated with Methotrexate Monotherapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine through a systematic literature search the predictors of clinical response and radiographic progression in adult patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treated with methotrexate (MTX) monotherapy. METHODS: A systematic literature search using Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, in May 2008, and review of abstracts of the annual congresses of the American College of Rheumatology (2006-2007) and the European League Against Rheumatism (2002-2007) was performed, as part of a national initiative to develop guidelines for the use of MTX in RA. RESULTS: Nine studies fulfilled the criteria set for this literature search. Male sex, low disease activity measured by composite scores (DAS or SDAI), and nonutilization of prior DMARD were predictive of good clinical response to MTX. Patients with early RA who are rheumatoid factor-positive and smokers tend to have lower response. However, this last association has not been found for patients with established disease. High disease activity before introduction of MTX monotherapy and higher activity during followup at 3 months is a predictor of more severe radiographic progression. CONCLUSION: Among factors found to be predictive of clinical and radiographic outcomes of patients with RA treated with MTX, no factor was found to have a high predictive value. Variability in efficacy measures and statistical tests made it difficult to compare results. Followup of disease activity after 3 to 6 months of treatment seems to be a better and more useful predictor than baseline patient characteristics.
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 | 0.005 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".