MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2537561915 · doi:10.4172/1948-593x.1000e132

Comparison of Methotrexate with Tripterygium wilfordii Hook F in the Management of Rheumatoid Arthritis

2015· article· en· W2537561915 on OpenAlexaff
Jianguo Yuan Haiyan Ye, Shilin Li Limin Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Bioanalysis & Biomedicine · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNatural Compounds in Disease Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health NetworkUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTripterygium wilfordiiRheumatoid arthritisMethotrexateHookTripterygiumMedicineTraditional medicineInternal medicineAlternative medicineChemistryPathologyStereochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a serious chronic debilitating health problem, affecting approximately 1% population. The chronic autoimmune disease is characterized by persistent synovitis, systemic inflammation, and presence of autoantibody. Rheumatoid arthritis can lead to joint damage, disability, decreased quality of life and life expectancy In this editorial, we compared the two most commonly used drugs, Methotrexate and Tripterygium wilfordii Hook F for the treatment of RA, particularly focusing on the mechanism of action, safety and adverse effects.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.495
Threshold uncertainty score0.448

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.357
Teacher spread0.314 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations1
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Bioanalysis & BiomedicineSame topicNatural Compounds in Disease TreatmentFrench-language works237,207