MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3203646751 · doi:10.3899/jrheum.210984

Back to Basics: Prioritizing Communication as a Key Instrument in Managing Rheumatoid Arthritis

2021· editorial· en· W3203646751 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Paul Studenic, Helga Radner

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Rheumatology · 2021
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRheumatoid Arthritis Research and Therapies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersFoundation for Research in Rheumatology
KeywordsMedicineRheumatoid arthritisAntirheumatic drugsDiseasePhysical therapyAntirheumatic AgentsClinical trialInternal medicineIntensive care medicineRandomized controlled trial

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) have come to experience a tremendous increase in therapeutic options with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs).1 After decades of dissatisfying drug therapy results with conventional synthetic DMARDs (csDMARDs) only, the introduction of the first tumor necrosis factor inhibitors in the late 1990s has revolutionized RA treatment.2 Over the last 3 decades, different biologic DMARDs (bDMARDs) and targeted synthetic DMARDs (tsDMARDs) have been administered, targeting different disease mechanisms and showing efficacy after failure of csDMARDs. These manifold opportunities were then required to be framed in a structured management plan such as the treat-to-target (T2T) recommendations in 2010.3 Treatment of RA was established, with suggestions of adequate holistic measurement of disease activity.4,5 The inclusion of the patient perspective was integrated by using patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) as part of the assessments.6,7,8 With improved therapeutic options, treatment goals have changed. The patient– healthcare professional (HCP) team strives for achieving and maintaining clinical remission, which has become a realistic goal for many patients with RA.9,10 However, pharmacological treatment alone will not be sufficient to address all the layers affected by RA and to improve disease activity and RA-related health issues. Even in recent randomized controlled phase III trials of novel tsDMARDs, Boolean or Simplified Disease Activity Index remission rates are approximately 20% after 6 months.11,12,13 The majority of these trial patients can be classified as being in a state of low disease activity (LDA), demonstrating the efficacy of therapy but underlining … Address correspondence to Dr. P. Studenic, Karolinska Institutet, Department of Medicine (Solna), Division of Rheumatology, D2:01, Karolinska Universitetssjukhuset, 171 76 Stockholm, Sweden. Email: Paul.studenic{at}muv.ac.at.

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)0.024
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.047
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.127

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0240.047
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0090.012
Scholarly communication0.0150.014
Open science0.0030.013
Research integrity0.0070.022
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.003

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.272 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEditorial

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

Citations4
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Rheumatology→Same topicRheumatoid Arthritis Research and Therapies→French-language works237,207→