Something Old, Something New: Biomarkers in Rheumatoid Arthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The detection of RA in its early stages is often challenging, and the measurement of ACPA levels is crucial. Given the specificity of ACPA for RA, a positive result in any assay has a high predictive value for diagnosis; 40% positivity has been reported using the cyclic citrullinated peptide (CCP) assay and similar or slightly lower percentages by other assays. Unfortunately, with all the assays now available, the frequency of a positive result is lower in early RA — when treatment would be most efficacious — than in later disease. A small increment in the frequency of positive results may be obtained by conducting parallel assays using different citrullinated substrates. In fact, the overlap of the CCP assay with the other tests for ACPA is not complete: sera that are anti-CCP-negative, but positive for antiviral citrullinated peptide, anticitrullinated fibrinogen, or anti-modified citrullinated vimentin antibodies do exist, and have been reported in 2%–7% of tested RA populations. \nIn the future, the diagnosis of RA could benefit greatly from the gathering of information through the assaying of many variables simultaneously — for example, a cluster of biomarkers associated with genotyping — leading to the more accurate prediction of disease outcome and to more effective, individualized treatment.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".