Antimalarial Drugs Alone May Still Have a Role in Rheumatoid Arthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Antimalarials have been used for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) for several decades. Current guidelines do not include the use of these drugs alone for RA patients. The purpose of the study is to review RA patients, to find those who have done well on antimalarials alone, and see if there are common features that predict good treatment outcome with these drugs. METHODS: This is a retrospective chart review of patients who have been successfully treated with antimalarials alone. Patients who were attending routine follow-up and were seemingly in remission defined by no swollen or tender joints were selected over a 6-month period. Those who had being doing well but were now or had been on other agents were not included. The background data were reviewed to see if there were any common initial characteristics. RESULTS: Thirty-three patients were seen who had been administered antimalarials alone and where initial data were available. Patients remain in clinical remission. Based on clinical observation, inflammatory markers, and radiographic reports, in the follow-up visits, they remain with no signs of inflammation and no new erosions on radiograph. Initial bone erosions on 2 patients remain stable over the years. CONCLUSIONS: There are some patients with confirmed RA who without doubt respond well to antimalarials alone. It is hard to objectively measure whether mild disease activity, early treatment initiation, lack of smoking, or other factors are contributing to a good treatment response.
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 | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".