Comparing Canadian paediatric rheumatology practice to the 2019 ACR Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis guidelines: results from the CAPRI Registry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To identify differences between baseline Canadian JIA practices and the 2019 ACR guidelines for JIA. METHODS: Canadian paediatric rheumatologists were surveyed for their opinions on reasonable a priori target adherence rates for JIA guideline recommendations. Prospectively collected data for 266 newly diagnosed children from 2017 to 2019 were analysed to calculate observed adherence rates. Kaplan-Meier survival curves were used to estimate the cumulative incidence of starting synthetic or biologic DMARDs (sDMARD or bDMARD, respectively) for different patient groups. RESULTS: A total of 25/61 (41%) eligible physicians answered the survey. Most survey respondents (64%) felt that adherence targets should vary depending on the strength of the recommendation and quality of evidence, from a mean of 84% for strong recommendations with high-quality evidence to 29% for conditional recommendations with very low-quality evidence. Data showed 13/19 (68%) recommendations would have met proposed targets and 10/19 (53%) had ≥80% observed adherence. Exceptions were the use of subcutaneous vs oral MTX (53%) and infrequent treatment escalation from NSAIDs to bDMARDs in patients with sacroiliitis (31%) or enthesitis (0%). By 12 weeks, 95% of patients with polyarthritis received sDMARDs, 38% of patients with systemic JIA received bDMARDs and 22% of patients with sacroiliitis received bDMARDs. CONCLUSION: Canadian paediatric rheumatology practices were in line with many 2019 JIA guideline recommendations before their publication, except for frequent use of oral MTX and infrequent direct escalation from NSAIDs to bDMARDs in sacroiliitis and enthesitis.
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 | 0.005 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".