Association of Anticyclic Citrullinated Peptide Antibodies and/or Rheumatoid Factor Status and Clinical Presentation in Early Arthritis: Results from the ESPOIR Cohort
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the initial clinical, biological, and radiographic findings of early arthritis by positivity for rheumatoid factor (RF) and/or anticyclic citrullinated peptide antibodies (anti-CCP), and to validate a patient profile based on this serologic information. METHODS: The ESPOIR cohort comprises patients presenting synovitis of at least 2 joints for 6 weeks to 6 months. Patients underwent testing for IgM rheumatoid factor (IgM-RF) and anti-CCP2 antibodies and were divided into 4 groups: RF- and anti-CCP- (group 1), RF+ and anti-CCP- (group 2), RF- and anti-CCP+ (group 3), RF+ and anti-CCP+ (group 4). We compared the groups in terms of clinical, biological, and radiographic features (baseline scores and 6-month and 12-month progression). RESULTS: Of the 813 recruited patients, 406 (50%) were in group 1, 91 (11.2%) in group 2, 34 (4.1%) in group 3, and 281 (34.6%) in group 4. Mean baseline erythrocyte sedimentation rate and C-reactive protein were higher for anti-CCP+ groups (groups 3 and 4) than for other groups (p < 0.001), and van der Heijde-modified Sharp score for radiographs was higher for group 4 than for other groups (p < 0.001). Clinical presentation was not consistently associated with serologic profile. Radiographic progression at 1 year was higher for anti-CCP+ groups than other groups (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The phenotype of patients with early arthritis with or without anti-CCP and/or RF positivity did not correspond to a particular clinical presentation. However, baseline acute-phase reactants and short-term radiographic progression were high in patients with anti-CCP positivity, which may be associated with the inflammatory process and progressive disease in patients with early 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 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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".