Etanercept in Children with Polyarticular Juvenile Rheumatoid Arthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We evaluated the safety and efficacy of etanercept, a soluble tumor necrosis factor receptor (p75):Fc fusion protein, in children with polyarticular juvenile rheumatoid arthritis who did not tolerate or had an inadequate response to methotrexate. METHODS: Patients 4 to 17 years old received 0.4 mg of etanercept per kilogram of body weight subcutaneously twice weekly for up to three months in the initial, open-label part of a multicenter trial. Those who responded to treatment then entered a double-blind study and were randomly assigned to receive either placebo or etanercept for four months or until a flare of the disease occurred. A response was defined as an improvement of 30 percent or more in at least three of six indicators of disease activity, with no more than one indicator worsening by more than 30 percent. RESULTS: At the end of the open-label study, 51 of the 69 patients (74 percent) had had responses to etanercept treatment. In the double-blind study, 21 of the 26 patients who received placebo (81 percent) withdrew because of disease flare, as compared with 7 of the 25 patients who received etanercept (28 percent) (P=0.003). The median time to disease flare with placebo was 28 days, as compared with more than 116 days with etanercept (P<0.001). In the double-blind study, there were no significant differences between the two treatment groups in the frequency of adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with etanercept leads to significant improvement in patients with active polyarticular juvenile rheumatoid arthritis. Etanercept is well tolerated by pediatric patients.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".