Effects of Rituximab and Infliximab Treatment on Carboxypeptidase B and Its Substrates in RA Synovium
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the synovial effects of 2 potent biologic rheumatoid arthritis (RA) therapies, focusing on their effect on the expression level of carboxypeptidase B (CPB) and its substrates. METHODS: Patients with RA receiving infliximab (IFX; n = 9) or rituximab (RTX; n = 5) had an arthroscopic synovial biopsy at baseline and 16 weeks posttherapy. Expression of CPB, C5a, osteopontin (OPN), CD3, CD20, CD55, and CD68 was assessed by immunohistochemistry and image analysis, and compared with OA synovium. RA disease activity score was assessed at multiple timepoints. Serial serum samples were analyzed for soluble CPB and C5a levels. RESULTS: The baseline clinical characteristics of patients receiving IFX and RTX were similar. At the time of the second biopsy, 50% of patients had achieved a European League Against Rheumatism good or moderate response. At baseline, expression of CPB, C5a, and OPN was markedly higher in RA compared with OA synovium and correlated with mononuclear cell infiltration. There was an overall reduction in synovial expression of CPB, C5a, and OPN paralleling a reduction in mononuclear cell infiltration, but these changes were not associated with clinical response. After an early reduction in serum C5a levels, these returned to baseline levels at later timepoints. CONCLUSION: In response to IFX and RTX treatment, RA synovial expression of CPB, C5a, and OPN decrease independently of the clinical response, reflecting the complex proinflammatory and antiinflammatory effects of this pathway.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".