Differences in Palmoplantar Pustulosis and Psoriasis Vulgaris in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis or Ankylosing Spondylitis Treated with Biological Therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Biological treatment is an effective treatment for various chronic inflammatory diseases1,2. Nevertheless, reports of paradoxical immune-mediated inflammation induced by biologicals are increasing3. A paradoxical adverse event is defined as the development of inflammatory manifestations in patients after the initiation of biologicals, mostly tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi), normally used to treat such disorders3. Palmoplantar pustulosis (PPP) and psoriasis vulgaris (PV) are the most described paradoxical cutaneous adverse events4. Although studies show that PPP and PV are different entities, they are analyzed as 1 group of paradoxical cutaneous diseases5. Consequently, individual prevalence of paradoxical PPP and PV, and associated differences regarding the clinical consequence, are still unknown. To study these differences, we retrospectively collected data from 2000 to 2015 of the Reade Rheumatology Registry, an observational cohort of patients with biological-treated ankylosing spondylitis (AS) and rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The 5 different TNFi, abatacept (ABA), tocilizumab (TCZ), and rituximab were included. Further, each patient received a multiple-choice questionnaire, from June 2016 … Address correspondence to Dr. J. Ruwaard, Amsterdam Rheumatology and Immunology Center, location Reade, Dr. Jan van Breemenstraat 2, 1056 AB Amsterdam, the Netherlands. E-mail: j.ruwaard{at}reade.nl
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".