Measuring treatment outcomes and change in disease activity in giant cell arteritis: a systematic literature review informing the development of the EULAR-ACR response criteria on behalf of the EULAR-ACR response criteria in giant cell arteritis task force
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To identify criteria and descriptors used to measure response to treatment and change in disease activity in giant cell arteritis (GCA). METHODS: A systematic literature review (SLR) to retrieve randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and longitudinal observational studies (LOS). Criteria and descriptors of active disease, remission, response, improvement, worsening and relapse were extracted. RCTs, LOS with >20 subjects, and qualitative research studies were included. RESULTS: 10 593 studies were retrieved, of which 116 were included (11 RCTs, 104 LOS, 1 qualitative study). No unified definition of response to therapy was found. Most RCTs used composite endpoints to assess treatment outcomes. Active disease was described in all RCTs and 19% of LOS; and was largely defined by a combination of clinical and laboratory components. Remission was reported in 73% of RCTs and 42% of LOS; It was predominantly defined as the combination of clinical and laboratory components. One LOS reported response with a definition resembling the definition of remission from other studies. Improvement was rarely used as an endpoint and it was mostly a surrogate of remission. No study specifically defined worsening. Relapse was reported in all RCTs and 86% of LOS. It was predominantly defined as the combination of clinical, laboratory and treatment components. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this SLR demonstrate that definitions of response used in clinical studies of GCA are scant and heterogeneous. RCTs and LOS mainly used remission and relapse as treatment outcomes. The descriptors identified will inform the development of the future European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology-American College of Rheumatology response criteria for GCA.
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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".