Less Radiographic Progression with Adalimumab Plus Methotrexate Versus Methotrexate Monotherapy Across the Spectrum of Clinical Response in Early Rheumatoid Arthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the relationship between radiographic progression and clinical response for adalimumab plus methotrexate (MTX) versus either monotherapy in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in the PREMIER study. METHODS: Patients with early RA who received adalimumab plus MTX (n = 240), adalimumab (n = 222), or MTX (n = 216) were grouped by American College of Rheumatology (ACR) response, 28-joint Disease Activity Score (DAS28), or remission-like state [tender joint count (TJC) = 0; DAS28 < 2.6; swollen joint count = 0; ACR100] at 26 and 104 weeks. Radiographic progression was assessed by cumulative probability plots, mean changes in total Sharp score (DeltaTSS), and percentages of progressors (DeltaTSS > 0.5). RESULTS: Across the spectrum of clinical outcomes, including ACR20 nonresponses and remission-like responses, therapy with adalimumab plus MTX permitted less radiographic progression at Weeks 26 and 104 than MTX monotherapy. Adalimumab monotherapy was generally intermediate. A strong, proportional relationship was observed between clinical response and radiographic efficacy only for MTX monotherapy. The monotherapies approximated the radiographic efficacy of adalimumab plus MTX only among remission-like responders, although progression was significantly greater with MTX monotherapy versus adalimumab plus MTX for patients with TJC = 0. Concurrent clinical (DAS28 < 2.6) and radiographic (DeltaTSS
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".