MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

219. Long-Term Safety and Efficacy of Golimumab in the Treatment of Ankylosing Spondylitis: Results Through 5 Years of a Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Trial

2014· article· en· W2269887895 on OpenAlexaffabout
Atul Deodhar, Jürgen Braun, Robert D. Inman, Désirée van der Heijde, Yiying Zhou, Benjamin Hsu

Bibliographic record

VenueLara D. Veeken · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpondyloarthritis Studies and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineGolimumabAnkylosing spondylitisInternal medicineRheumatologyPlaceboBiostatisticsFamily medicinePhysical therapyAlternative medicineEpidemiologyEtanerceptPathologyRheumatoid arthritis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Golimumab (GLM) has demonstrated significant and sustained clinical efficacy and an acceptable safety profile through 2 years of the phase 3, randomized, PBO-controlled, GO-RAISE study in pts with AS. GLM safety/efficacy in AS pts receiving GLM50 mg and/or 100 mg through 5 years was evaluated. Methods: 356pts with AS were randomized to s.c. PBO, GLM50 mg, or GLM100 mg q4w. At week 16, pts with inadequate response early escaped (EE) with blinded dose adjustments (PBO to GLM50 mg, GLM50 mg to 100 mg). At week 24, pts still receiving PBO crossed over to GLM50 mg. Pts continued double-blind treatment through week 100. The long-term extension started with the week 104 GLM injection. Pts received GLM q4w for ∼5 years (final injection at week 252). After unblinding at week 104 and at the investigator’s discretion, pts receiving GLM50 mg could increase their dose to 100 mg; pts receiving GLM100 mg could decrease dose to 50 mg; concomitant DMARD, corticosteroid, and NSAID therapy could be adjusted.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.270 · 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 designRandomized trial
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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLara D. VeekenSame topicSpondyloarthritis Studies and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207