Bibliographic record
Abstract
Interstitial lung disease(ILD) is one of the common extra-articular manifestations of rheumatoid arthritis(RA).Its incidence in RA is 7.7%,and the prognosis is poor.Leflunomide is one of the commonly used drugs for RA,but there are more and more reports about leflunomide caused interstitial pneumonia.Then,should leflunomide be used when RA is complicated with ILD? However,It has been reported that leflunomide can be an effective treatment for RA patient who already sufferred from lung disease[including ILD caused by methotrexate(MTX)],and no adverse drug reaction or pulmonary exacerbation was observed.So,leflunomide could be used as a replacement therapy in patients with MTX related ILD.The safety of leflunomide in treatment of RA was relatively approved in China, but the reports on leflunomide induced ILD were not rare recently outside of China.A cohort study performed in Canada reported that the risk of ILD was increased in RA patients treated with leflunomide(adjusted RR 1.9),but it was not elevated in patients with no previous history of MTX use or ILD(adjusted RR1.2).Japanese scholars proposed that leflunomide application should be prohibited or require careful consideration in elderly male RA patients with history of ILD or smoking.Pulmonary function responsed to leflunomide adversely in an ethnic group dependent manner.Genetics testing might be the key to find the answer.Although leflunomide had a potential risk of causing ILD,meta-analysis indicated satisfactory therapeutic effects and safety of leflunomide for RA.For RA patients with preexisting pulmonary disorders,leflunomide application requires careful consdideration and CT scanning should be monitored regularly.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".