Repair of Erosions in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to examine the occurrence of repair in a cohort of conventionally treated patients with early rheumatoid arthritis over 8 years. METHODS: There were 395 patients included in the BARFOT study having radiographs of hands and feet at inclusion, and at 1, 2, 5, and 8 years, which were chronologically scored for erosions by the Sharp/van der Heijde method. An erosion with repair was defined as an erosion that has become partially or totally filled, with or without sclerosis. RESULTS: Erosions with repair were observed in 64 patients (16%) at 1 year, 113 (29%) at 2 years, 142 (36%) at 5 years, and 200 (51%) at 8 years. At the 1-year visit, 13% of the patients with at least 1 new erosion showed repair versus 3% of the patients with no new erosions (p = 0.001). At 2, 5, and 8 years the corresponding figures were 22% and 6%, 28% and 8%, and 39% and 11%, respectively (all p = 0.001). The sum of all repaired erosions correlated strongly with the sum of all erosions and with the sum of all erosion scores (ρ = 0.79 and 0.77). Presence of rheumatoid factor (RF) and anticyclic citrullinated peptide antibodies (anti-CCP) was significantly associated with both new erosions and repair. CONCLUSION: Repair was more common than previously described. The frequency of repair increased over time and was associated with the number of erosions. RF- and anti-CCP-positivity, patient age, and presence of erosions at baseline were independent predictors of repair.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".