Induction of autoantibodies during prolonged treatment with infliximab.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the frequency and correlates of autoantibody formation in patients with rheumatic diseases treated with infliximab in a routine clinical setting. METHODS: All patients receiving at least 5 infusions of infliximab, and with anticipated continuation, were prospectively evaluated for the development of the following antibodies: antinuclear antibody (ANA), anti-DNA, anti-Sm, anti-RNP, anti-SSA and anti-SSB. Correlates with pharmacologic treatments, response to infliximab, and adverse events were assessed. RESULTS: Seventy-six percent of 42 patients receiving prolonged treatment with infliximab developed new autoantibodies, and these persisted in 57%. The most common new autoantibody was ANA in 45%, followed by anti-DNA in 33%, anti-Sm in 31%, and anti-RNP in 29%. New autoantibody formation was associated with both a greater number of infusions (p = 0.015) and a higher total dose of infliximab infused (p = 0.047). No other treatment, disease characteristic, or loss of efficacy to infliximab discriminated between those developing antibodies compared to those without new antibody formation. No patient developed clinical signs of a new connective tissue disease. CONCLUSION: Autoantibody formation is seen commonly in patients receiving prolonged treatment with infliximab. Concomitant immunosuppressive treatments did not preclude the formation of antibodies. The clinical significance of antibody formation remains to be determined.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".