Management of Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis 2015: A Position Statement from the Pediatric Committee of the Canadian Rheumatology Association
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The medical management of juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) and its complications has undergone significant changes in the last decade, a result largely of the introduction of biologics and increased availability of expertise in the diagnosis and management of rheumatic diseases in children and adolescents. The result is that clinical outcome has improved and complete disease control can often be achieved1. In 2010, the British Society for Paediatric and Adolescent Rheumatology (BSPAR) proposed guidelines for the optimal management of children and adolescents with JIA2. This advocacy statement emphasizes the importance of empowering children and their caregivers, facilitating early detection of JIA, prompt referral to a team of health professionals who are expert in the diagnosis and management of childhood rheumatic diseases, prompt access to all appropriate pharmacologic and biologic therapies, and regular followup and monitoring. The Canadian Wait Time Alliance sets acceptable wait times as 4 weeks in children with JIA, other than systemic onset JIA, and within 7 days of disease onset for children with systemic onset JIA. Screening for asymptomatic uveitis should take place within 4 weeks of the diagnosis of JIA3. Ideally, children and adolescents with JIA should be managed by a team of health professionals with training and experience in pediatric rheumatology given … Address correspondence to Dr. R.E. Petty, Division of Rheumatology, Department of Pediatrics, University of British Columbia, British Columbia’s Children’s Hospital, 4480 Oak St., Room K4-114, Vancouver, British Columbia V6H 3V4, Canada; E-mail: rpetty{at}cw.bc.ca
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 | 0.010 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.004 |
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".