Treatment controversies in spondyloarthritis and psoriatic arthritis: focus on biologics and targeted therapies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: There are several treatment controversies that have emerged in spondyloarthritis and psoriatic arthritis. These are related to the nature of the conditions as well as to the use of medications. AREAS COVERED: This review, which included a search of PubMed database as well as the references within the articles provides an overview of the nature of spondyloarthritis, controversy over the inclusion of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) as a peripheral spondyloarthritis, and a summary of current treatments for both PsA and axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA), with special emphasis on targeted therapy. The review highlights the differences in response to certain medications, particularly biologic therapy and summarizes the randomized controlled trials in psoriatic arthritis and axial spondyloarthritis providing data about the responses in table format. EXPERT OPINION: There is a need for better outcome measures in axSpA. Currently, the measures are subjective. Imaging may be more appropriate but there is a need for research into the reliability and responsiveness of imaging techniques. In PsA, there may also be better response measures and research into the reliability and responsiveness of available measures is underway. There is also a need for novel therapies as well as biomarkers for response in both diseases.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".