Systemic Treatment for Temporomandibular Joint Arthritis in Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Within the last decade, intensified research has highlighted the orofacial consequences of juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) involving the temporomandibular joint (TMJ). It has been documented that about 40% of subjects with JIA develop involvement of the TMJ1,2. Smaller studies have reported even higher frequencies of TMJ involvement3. TMJ arthritis may occur in otherwise quiescent JIA, and in rare cases the TMJ is the first and even the only joint involved2,4. It may lead to symptoms and dysfunction from both the joint and the muscles, with a significant effect on the quality of life1,2,5,6,7. In addition to facial signs and symptoms, the development of dentofacial deformity is a primary concern to patients with JIA7. The TMJ is considered a “vulnerable” joint to inflammation because of a superficially positioned intraarticular mandibular growth site of crucial importance for normal mandibular growth and development8. In skeletally immature patients, TMJ inflammation can affect the intraarticular growth site and disturb dentofacial growth and development7. The degree of dentofacial deformity depends on the timing of TMJ arthritis in relation to the general growth trajectory. Research from the last decade has advanced our understanding of TMJ arthritis from JIA. The research progress indicates that TMJ involvement is a common finding in JIA1,2,7. Arthritis-induced orofacial signs and symptoms may persist into adulthood in subjects with JIA and TMJ involvement9. Facial signs and symptoms correlate poorly with the severity of TMJ inflammation; contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is therefore considered the gold standard for diagnosis of active TMJ inflammation10,11,12. Still, a standardized clinical examination is … Address correspondence to Dr. P. Stoustrup, Section of Orthodontics, IOOS, Vennelyst Blvd. 9-11, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark. E-mail: pstoustrup{at}odont.au.dk
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".