MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3167456795 · doi:10.1002/art.41888

Optimizing the Start Time of Biologics in Polyarticular Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis: A Comparative Effectiveness Study of Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance Consensus Treatment Plans

2021· article· en· W3167456795 on OpenAlexaff
Yukiko Kimura, Laura E. Schanberg, George Tomlinson, Mary Ellen Riordan, Anne Dennos, Vincent Del Gaizo, Katherine Murphy, Pamela F. Weiss, Marc D. Natter, Brian M. Feldman, Sarah Ringold

Bibliographic record

VenueArthritis & Rheumatology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAutoimmune and Inflammatory Disorders Research
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
FundersH2020 European Research CouncilNational Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin DiseasesSwedish Orphan BiovitrumNational Institutes of HealthSanofiChildhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research AllianceRheumatology Research FoundationPfizerPatient-Centered Outcomes Research InstituteEli Lilly and CompanyBristol-Myers SquibbGenentechArthritis Foundation
KeywordsMedicineInternal medicineRheumatologyObservational studyArthritisPhysical therapyAntirheumatic drugsDiseaseBiosimilarAntirheumatic Agents

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: The optimal time to start biologics in polyarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) remains uncertain. The Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance (CARRA) developed 3 consensus treatment plans (CTPs) for untreated polyarticular JIA to compare strategies for starting biologics. METHODS: Start Time Optimization of Biologics in Polyarticular JIA (STOP-JIA) was a prospective, observational, CARRA Registry study comparing the effectiveness of 3 CTPs: 1) the step-up plan (initial nonbiologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug [DMARD] monotherapy, adding a biologic if needed, 2) the early combination plan (DMARD and biologic started together), and 3) the biologic first plan (biologic monotherapy). The primary outcome measure was clinically inactive disease according to the provisional American College of Rheumatology (ACR) criteria, without glucocorticoids, at 12 months. Secondary outcome measures included Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) pain interference and mobility scores, inactive disease as defined by the clinical Juvenile Arthritis Disease Activity Score in 10 joints (JADAS-10), and the ACR Pediatric 70 criteria (Pedi 70). RESULTS: Of 400 patients enrolled, 257 (64%) began the step-up plan, 100 (25%) the early combination plan, and 43 (11%) the biologic first plan. After propensity score weighting and multiple imputation, clinically inactive disease according to the ACR criteria was achieved in 37% of those on the early combination plan, 32% on the step-up plan, and 24% on the biologic first plan (P = 0.17). Inactive disease according to the clinical JADAS-10 (score ≤2.5) was also achieved in more patients on the early combination plan than the step-up plan (59% versus 43%; P = 0.03), as was ACR Pedi 70 (81% versus 62%; P = 0.008), but generalizability was limited by missing data. PROMIS measures improved in all groups, but without significant differences. Twenty serious adverse events were reported (mostly infections). CONCLUSION: Achievement of clinically inactive disease without glucocorticoids did not significantly differ between groups at 12 months. While there was a significantly higher likelihood of early combination therapy achieving inactive disease according to the clinical JADAS-10 and ACR Pedi 70, these results require further exploration.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.073

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.039
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.286 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations39
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArthritis & RheumatologySame topicAutoimmune and Inflammatory Disorders ResearchFrench-language works237,207