The use of infliximab in academic rheumatology practice: an audit of early clinical experience.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To audit a first clinical experience of treating rheumatic disease patients with infliximab in the setting of an academic tertiary care rheumatology practice. METHODS: The infusion history of patients referred to the McGill University Health Centre during the first 18 month period of a special access program for treatment with infliximab, a tumor necrosis factor-a antibody, was audited for disease characteristics, dosing schedule for infliximab, concomitant treatments, response rate, and side effect profile. RESULTS: Forty-one patients received a total of 300 infusions of infliximab over a period of 9 +/- 5 months (mean +/- standard deviation). Rheumatic disease indications were rheumatoid arthritis in 30, spondyloarthropathy in 6, psoriatic arthritis in 2, juvenile onset polyarthritis in 2, and scleroderma in one. Disease duration was 17 +/- 11 years. Concomitant treatment with steroids and methotrexate was present in 68% and 54%, respectively. Infliximab treatment was continued beyond 5 infusions or 22 weeks in 63%. Of the 26 patients continuing treatment, adjustment to dosing and/or interval schedule of infusions was made in 58%. The clinical response rate was moderately to greatly improved in 96%. Severe side effects considered directly related to the treatment were observed in 6 (15%) patients; less severe side effects, which did not preclude continuation of treatment but frequently required medical intervention, were noted in 93%. CONCLUSION: Infliximab is a valuable treatment for patients with resistant rheumatic diseases in the short term. Both the serious, and the frequent, more benign complication rate observed in this group of patients should alert physicians to be vigilant in the routine care of patients treated with infliximab.
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 | 0.004 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".