MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2424801291 · doi:10.3899/jrheum.151006

Longterm Retention Rate and Risk Factors for Adalimumab Discontinuation Due To Efficacy and Safety in Japanese Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis: An Observational Cohort Study

2016· article· en· W2424801291 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Yosuke Hattori, Toshihisa Kojima, Atsushi Kaneko, Daihei Kida, Y. Hirano, Takayoshi Fujibayashi, Kenya Terabe, Yuichiro Yabe, Hiroyuki Miyake, Takefumi Kato, Hideki Takagi, Masatoshi Hayashi, Takayasu Ito, Yasuhide Kanayama, Takeshi Oguchi, Nobunori Takahashi, Hisato Ishikawa, Koji Funahashi, Naoki Ishiguro

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Rheumatology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRheumatoid Arthritis Research and Therapies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDiscontinuationRheumatoid arthritisAdalimumabObservational studyInternal medicineCohortCohort studyRisk factorArthritisPhysical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the rates of retention and discontinuation of adalimumab (ADA) due to efficacy and safety in Japanese patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: All patients with RA (n = 476) who were treated with ADA in the Tsurumai Biologics Communication Registry were enrolled. RESULTS: The retention rate of ADA was 46% at 5 years. When focusing on insufficient efficacy, previous biologics use and high baseline disease activity were significant risk factors for up to 1 year. Methotrexate (MTX) use was a significantly low risk factor after 1 year of treatment. CONCLUSION: Concomitant MTX contributes to the longterm efficacy of ADA therapy.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.255 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Rheumatology→Same topicRheumatoid Arthritis Research and Therapies→French-language works237,207→