Consensus Treatment Plans for Chronic Nonbacterial Osteomyelitis Refractory to Nonsteroidal Antiinflammatory Drugs and/or With Active Spinal Lesions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To develop standardized treatment regimens for chronic nonbacterial osteomyelitis (CNO), also known as chronic recurrent multifocal osteomyelitis (CRMO), to enable comparative effectiveness treatment studies. METHODS: Virtual and face-to-face discussions and meetings were held within the CNO/CRMO subgroup of the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance (CARRA). A literature search was conducted, and CARRA membership was surveyed to evaluate available treatment data and identify current treatment practices. Nominal group technique was used to achieve consensus on treatment plans for CNO refractory to nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drug (NSAID) monotherapy and/or with active spinal lesions. RESULTS: Three consensus treatment plans (CTPs) were developed for the first 12 months of therapy for CNO patients refractory to NSAID monotherapy and/or with active spinal lesions. The 3 CTPs are methotrexate or sulfasalazine, tumor necrosis factor inhibitors with optional methotrexate, and bisphosphonates. Short courses of glucocorticoids and continuation of NSAIDs are permitted for all regimens. Consensus was achieved on these CTPs among CARRA members. Consensus was also reached on subject eligibility criteria, initial evaluations that should be conducted prior to the initiation of CTPs, and data items to collect to assess treatment response. CONCLUSION: Three consensus treatment plans were developed for pediatric patients with CNO refractory to NSAIDs and/or with active spinal lesions. Use of these CTPs will provide additional information on efficacy and will generate meaningful data for comparative effectiveness research in CNO.
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 | 0.012 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".