The Actual Role of Therapy with Traditional Disease-modifying Antirheumatic Drugs in Psoriatic Arthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although several reviews and metaanalyses have shown lack of evidence of efficacy of traditional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARD) in psoriatic arthritis (PsA), these drugs are very often used and are recommended by treatment guidelines around the world as first-line therapy for most patients with PsA. Some new investigations showed that higher doses of methotrexate (MTX) are more beneficial for patients with PsA with peripheral involvement. Also, observational studies have shown that retention of MTX for patients with PsA is comparable to that of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), and that with MTX, remission is achievable by around 20% of patients with PsA. Sulfasalazine, leflunomide, and cyclosporine have also been shown to be effective in a small number of patients, although the overall effect on disease activity for these drugs is small. Although combination of anti-tumor necrosis factor agents with traditional DMARD is not mandatory in PsA as it is in RA, there is evidence that some extra benefit might be achieved when combinations are used, not only for the joints but for the skin. There is still room for the use of traditional DMARD in PsA, and for the time being, DMARD should still be considered as first-line therapy for most patients with PsA.
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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".