Disease Relapses among Patients with Giant Cell Arteritis: A Prospective, Longitudinal Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the frequency, timing, and clinical features of relapses in giant cell arteritis (GCA). METHODS: Patients with GCA enrolled in a prospective, multicenter, longitudinal study were included in the analysis. Relapse was defined as either new disease activity after a period of remission or worsening disease activity. RESULTS: The study included 128 subjects: 102 women (80%) and 26 men (20%). Mean ± SD age at diagnosis of GCA was 69.9 ± 8.6 years. Mean followup for the cohort was 21.4 ± 13.9 months. Median (interquartile range) duration of disease at study enrollment was 4.6 months (1.2, 16.8). During followup, 59 relapses were observed in 44 patients (34%). Ten patients (8%) experienced 2 or more relapses. The most common symptoms at relapse were headache (42%) and polymyalgia rheumatica (51%), but ischemic (some transient) manifestations (visual symptoms, tongue or jaw claudication, and/or limb claudication) occurred in 29% of relapses (12% cohort). Forty-three relapses (73%) occurred while patients were taking glucocorticoid therapy at a median (range) prednisone dose of 7.5 (0-35) mg. In 21% of relapses, both erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) and C-reactive protein (CRP) were normal. Among 69 patients enrolled in the cohort with newly diagnosed disease, 24% experienced a first relapse within 12 months after diagnosis. CONCLUSION: Among patients with GCA, relapses are common, often occurring during treatment. ESR and CRP are frequently normal at times of clinical relapse, highlighting the need for better biomarkers to assess disease activity in GCA. There remains a need for effective therapeutic alternatives to glucocorticoids in GCA.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".