Temporal Artery Biopsy Debate: Positive TAB Result Prolongs Steroid Use in Giant Cell Arteritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Temporal artery biopsy (TAB) in diagnosing giant cell arteritis has been criticized due to surgical risks, a high false negative rate, and redundant information when patients already met American College of Rheumatology criteria. The objective of this study was to investigate TAB's impact on steroid treatment duration. Methods: A retrospective chart review garnered patient demographics, symptoms, comorbidities, and steroid treatment duration in patients undergoing TAB at a single center. Steroid treatment was compared between TAB+ and TAB - patients. Results: One hundred seven patients undergoing TAB were included. Patients were predominantly women (70.1%) with a median age of 74 years (46 -91). Of 107 TAB results, 74 (69.2%) were negative, 23 (21.5%) were positive, and 10 (9.3%) were found to be indeterminate. In TAB+ patients, the mean erythrocyte sedimentation rate was not significantly different than TAB - patients (60.2 versus 43.7, P = 0.45), nor was the median C-reactive protein (38.8 versus 18.1, P = 0.17). Regarding steroid use, both TAB+ and TAB - patients had a similarly high rate of prebiopsy steroid initiation (82.6% versus 70.3%, P = 0.32). More TAB+ patients remained on steroids at 6 weeks (95.0% versus 57.4%, P = 0.004), 6 months (95% versus 37.7%, P < 0.001), 1 year (65.0% versus 31.1%, P = 0.024), and 18 months (50.0% versus 19.7%, P = 0.045). By 2 years, the difference no longer met significance (35.0% versus 14.8%, P = 0.12). P = 0.12). Conclusion: TAB positivity does seem to influence maintenance of steroids up to 18 months after biopsy.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".