Sustained Remission: An Unmet Need in Patients with Giant-cell Arteritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Giant-cell arteritis (GCA) has been considered a paradigm of glucocorticoid-responsive disease because the majority of patients experience substantial relief of their symptoms with high-dose glucocorticoids (GC). However, GC may not completely suppress crucial immunopathogenic pathways, eventually leading to disease recurrence1,2. GCA has been largely recognized as a relapsing disease. However, many unanswered questions about relapses have been only infrequently addressed in the literature and await better characterization. To begin with, there is no consensus definition of relapse. In the majority of randomized controlled trials of GC-sparing agents, relapse, which is the essence of the primary endpoint, is defined by reappearance of specified GCA-related symptoms3,4,5,6. In some, but not in all of them, a concomitant increase in serum acute-phase reactants [usually erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) or C-reactive protein (CRP)] is required. However, reappearance of GCA-related clinical features has not always been mandatory and, in other studies, although establishing a precise threshold may be difficult and somehow arbitrary, isolated increases in acute-phase reactants are also considered disease flares7,8. In other reports, relapses rely on the judgment of treating physicians, … Address correspondence to Dr. M.C. Cid, Department of Autoimmune Diseases, Hospital Clínic, Villarroel 170, 08036-Barcelona, Spain. E-mail: mccid{at}clinic.ub.es
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 | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.003 |
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".