Comparison of Etanercept Monotherapy and Combination Therapy with Methotrexate in Psoriatic Arthritis: Results from 2 Clinical Trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the clinical/functional outcomes associated with etanercept (ETN) monotherapy versus combination therapy in psoriatic arthritis (PsA). METHODS: Data from patients with PsA who received ETN alone (n = 322) or combined with methotrexate (MTX; n = 152) for 24 weeks in 2 placebo-controlled clinical trials were summarized across studies. RESULTS: Similar proportions of patients in the monotherapy and combination therapy groups achieved the PsA Response Criteria (80% and 83%) and the American College of Rheumatology improvements of 20% (ACR20; both 70%); numerically higher proportions receiving monotherapy achieved ACR50 (55% vs 48%) and ACR70 (35% vs 27%). Little between-group difference was observed in the 28-joint Disease Activity Score with C-reactive protein, the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index, and the Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index improvement. CONCLUSION: ETN with and without MTX provided similar benefits in active 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 | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".