Bibliographic record
Abstract
Undoubtedly, methotrexate (MTX) has a unique place in all rheumatologists’ hearts. It holds the position of first-line treatment choice for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in the European and North American treatment guidelines for RA1,2,3. The benefit of early start of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARD), where MTX is the most preferred, has been increasingly emphasized in the last decade. In 2010 an expert task force published recommendations aiming at maximizing patients’ longterm health-related quality of life, through minimizing disease activity in RA as quickly as possible, with the goals of controlling symptoms, normalizing function, and halting radiographic progression of joint damage4. The treatment strategy is widely known as treat to target, and even though it has been questioned5,6, it is now a cornerstone in the modern approach to RA disease activity and treatment. In spite of the strong evidence that the drug is a good first choice for our patients, we still might not use it enough, especially when encountering the onset of RA in the elderly. Patients who develop RA at an older age have higher disease activity and disability, but experience a lesser chance of getting intensive treatment with MTX and other DMARD than their younger counterparts7,8. During the last 20 years we have also become aware that patients with RA have an increased risk of cardiovascular … Address correspondence to Dr. M. Holmqvist, Karolinska Institutet, Department of Medicine, Solna, Clinical Epidemiology Division, Eugeniahemmet T2, SE-171 76 Stockholm, Sweden. E-mail: marie.holmqvist{at}ki.se
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.045 | 0.021 |
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".