A decade of progress in juvenile idiopathic arthritis treatments and outcomes in Canada: results from ReACCh-Out and the CAPRI registry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess changes in juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) treatments and outcomes in Canada, comparing 2005-2010 and 2017-2021 inception cohorts. METHODS: Patients enrolled within three months of diagnosis in the Research in Arthritis in Canadian Children Emphasizing Outcomes (ReACCh-Out) and the Canadian Alliance of Pediatric Rheumatology Investigators Registry (CAPRI) cohorts were included. Cumulative incidences of drug starts and outcome attainment within 70 weeks of diagnosis were compared with Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and multivariable Cox regression. RESULTS: The 2005-2010 and 2017-2021 cohorts included 1128 and 721 patients, respectively. JIA category distribution and baseline clinical juvenile idiopathic arthritis disease activity (cJADAS10) scores at enrolment were comparable. By 70 weeks, 6% of patients (95% CI 5, 7) in the 2005-2010 and 26% (23, 30) in the 2017-2021 cohort had started a biologic DMARD (bDMARD), and 43% (40, 47) and 60% (56, 64) had started a conventional DMARD (cDMARD), respectively. Outcome attainment was 64% (61, 67) and 83% (80, 86) for inactive disease (Wallace criteria), 69% (66, 72) and 84% (81, 87) for minimally active disease (cJADAS10 criteria), 57% (54, 61) and 63% (59, 68) for pain control (<1/10), and 52% (47, 56) and 54% (48, 60) for good health-related quality of life (≥9/10). CONCLUSION: Although baseline disease characteristics were comparable in the 2005-2010 and 2017-2021 cohorts, cDMARD and bDMARD use increased with a concurrent increase in minimally active and inactive disease. Improvements in parent and patient-reported outcomes were smaller than improvements in disease activity.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".