14-3-3η Autoantibodies: Diagnostic Use in Early Rheumatoid Arthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To describe the expression and diagnostic use of 14-3-3η autoantibodies in early rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: 14-3-3η autoantibody levels were measured using an electrochemiluminescent multiplexed assay in 500 subjects (114 disease-modifying antirheumatic drug-naive patients with early RA, 135 with established RA, 55 healthy, 70 autoimmune, and 126 other non-RA arthropathy controls). 14-3-3η protein levels were determined in an earlier analysis. Two-tailed Student t tests and Mann-Whitney U tests compared differences among groups. Receiver-operator characteristic (ROC) curves were generated and diagnostic performance was estimated by area under the curve (AUC), as well as specificity, sensitivity, and likelihood ratios (LR) for optimal cutoffs. RESULTS: Median serum 14-3-3η autoantibody concentrations were significantly higher (p < 0.0001) in patients with early RA (525 U/ml) when compared with healthy controls (235 U/ml), disease controls (274 U/ml), autoimmune disease controls (274 U/ml), patients with osteoarthritis (259 U/ml), and all controls (265 U/ml). ROC curve analysis comparing early RA with healthy controls demonstrated a significant (p < 0.0001) AUC of 0.90 (95% CI 0.85-0.95). At an optimal cutoff of ≥ 380 U/ml, the ROC curve yielded a sensitivity of 73%, a specificity of 91%, and a positive LR of 8.0. Adding 14-3-3η autoantibodies to 14-3-3η protein positivity enhanced the identification of patients with early RA from 59% to 90%; addition of 14-3-3η autoantibodies to anticitrullinated protein antibodies (ACPA) and/or rheumatoid factor (RF) increased identification from 72% to 92%. Seventy-two percent of RF- and ACPA-seronegative patients were positive for 14-3-3η autoantibodies. CONCLUSION: 14-3-3η autoantibodies, alone and in combination with the 14-3-3η protein, RF, and/or ACPA identified most patients with early RA.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".