Treatment of rheumatoid arthritis-associated interstitial lung disease in a multi-center registry cohort
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Rheumatoid arthritis-associated interstitial lung disease (RA-ILD) is challenging to manage, with a paucity of robust data to guide treatment. Our aim was to characterize the pharmacologic treatment of RA-ILD utilizing a retrospective design in a national multi-center prospective cohort, and to identify associations between treatment and change in lung function and survival. Methods: Patients with RA-ILD and a radiological pattern of non-specific interstitial pneumonia (NSIP) or usual interstitial pneumonia (UIP) were included. Unadjusted and adjusted linear mixed models and Cox proportional hazards models were used to compare lung function change and risk of death or lung transplant by radiologic patterns and treatment. Results: 44.1%). Only 44/161 (27%) patients were treated over median follow-up of 4 years with medication choice appearing unrelated to patient-specific variables. Decline in forced vital capacity (FVC) was not associated with treatment. Patients with NSIP had lower risk of death or transplant, compared to UIP (P=0.0042). In patients with NSIP, there was no difference in time to death or transplant comparing treated to untreated in adjusted models [hazard ratio (HR) =0.73; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.15-3.62; P=0.70]. Similarly, in patients with UIP, there was no difference in time to death or lung transplant between treated and untreated in adjusted models (HR =1.06; 95% CI: 0.49-2.28; P=0.89). Conclusions: Treatment of RA-ILD is heterogeneous, with most patients in this cohort not receiving treatment. Patients with UIP had worse outcomes compared to NSIP, similar to other cohorts. Randomized clinical trials are needed to inform pharmacologic therapy in this patient population.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".