Countermeasures against methotrexate intolerance in juvenile idiopathic arthritis instituted by parents show no effect
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: A high proportion of children with JIA will develop intolerance to MTX with anticipatory and associative gastrointestinal adverse effects. Parents and physicians frequently try to alleviate these symptoms with a variety of countermeasures. The objective of this study was to investigate the course of MTX intolerance within a 6 month period, and the effects of countermeasures on MTX intolerance severity. Methods: We performed a prospective study of 196 consecutive JIA patients treated with MTX. Intolerance was determined using the Methotrexate Intolerance Severity Score (MISS) questionnaire. MISS and countermeasures instituted by parents or physicians were determined at four time points, each 2 months apart. Countermeasures, classified into four types (antiemetic drugs, covert dosing, taste masking and complementary medicine), were analysed using non-parametric statistics and mixed linear modelling, adjusted by propensity scoring for use of countermeasures. Results: Ninety patients (46%) showed MTX intolerance, with 58 (64%) using countermeasures at time of inclusion. Median MISS at inclusion was 11 (interquartile range = 8.0-14.25), and did not change significantly over time. No significant difference in MISS score was observed between patients receiving countermeasures and those who did not. For specific countermeasures, MISS did not change significantly after introduction. Sensitivity analysis adjusting for propensity score indicated no significant association of MISS severity on parents' decision to implement any countermeasures. Conclusion: MTX intolerance was present in many children with JIA and symptoms decreased little in the short term. Various modalities used as countermeasures against nausea by parents showed no discernible effect.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".