Differences in Predictive Factors for Sustained Clinical Remission with Abatacept Between Younger and Elderly Patients with Biologic-naive Rheumatoid Arthritis: Results from the ABROAD Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To differentiate predictive factors for sustained clinical remission between elderly and younger patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) receiving abatacept (ABA) as an initial biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drug. METHODS: The study involved 277 biologic-naive patients with RA with high or moderate disease activity, who were treated with intravenous ABA and evaluated for 48 weeks in 43 Japanese hospitals and rheumatology clinics (the ABatacept Research Outcomes as a First-line Biological Agent in the Real WorlD study: UMIN000004651). Predictive factors associated with sustained clinical remission defined by the 28-joint Disease Activity Score with C-reactive protein (DAS28-CRP) during the 24-48-week or 36-48-week periods were determined in elderly (≥ 65 yrs, n = 148) and younger patient groups (< 65 yrs, n = 129) using logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: Clinical remission was achieved at 24 and 48 weeks in 35.1% and 36.5% of patients in the elderly group and 34.9% and 43.4% in the younger group, respectively. In elderly patients, anticitrullinated protein antibody (ACPA) positivity and a lower DAS28-CRP score were significantly associated with sustained clinical remission; however, a lower Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI) score was not related to sustained clinical remission. In younger patients, lower DAS28-CRP and HAQ-DI scores were predictive factors for sustained clinical remission, whereas ACPA positivity was not a useful predictive factor for sustained clinical remission. CONCLUSION: Although the effectiveness of ABA in biologic-naive patients with RA was equally recognized in elderly and younger patients, the baseline clinical characteristics associated with sustained clinical remission were substantially different.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".