MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410543584 · doi:10.1002/acr2.70027

Clinical Manifestations and Treatment in Patients With Relapsing Polychondritis: A Multicenter Observational Cohort Study

2025· article· en· W4410543584 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueACR Open Rheumatology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOtitis Media and Relapsing Polychondritis
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
FundersVasculitis Clinical Research ConsortiumVasculitis Foundation
KeywordsMedicineInternal medicineRelapsing polychondritisObservational studyCohortCohort studySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Relapsing polychondritis (RP) is a rare, heterogeneous, multisystem disease lacking standard treatment guidelines. This study describes clinical manifestations in association with approaches to treatment. METHODS: Adults with physician-diagnosed RP were recruited into a multicenter observational cohort study. Clinical manifestations, organ damage, and medication history were recorded at the baseline study visit. Treatments received for RP at any time point before the initial visit were categorized into three groups: group 1 was treated with glucocorticoids (GCs) or no drugs, group 2 was treated with nonbiologic immunosuppressive (IS) drugs excluding JAK inhibitors (JAKis) with or without GCs, and group 3 was treated with JAKis or biologic IS drugs with or without nonbiologic IS drugs or GCs. RESULTS: Included in the study were 195 patients with RP who were predominantly female (167, 86%) and White (174, 89%), with a mean age of 49 ± 13years. All patients had ear, nose, or airway involvement, and 163 (83%) had musculoskeletal manifestations of RP. All patients had at least three clinical manifestations with median of 11 (range 3-19). GC treatment was given to 186 (95%) patients. Organ damage was seen in 80 (41%) patients. Treatment groups 1, 2, and 3 had 37 (19%), 55 (28%), and 103 (53%) patients, respectively. Patients in group 3 were more likely to have organ damage, arthritis, and subglottic stenosis. CONCLUSION: Patients with RP have a high burden of clinical manifestations with resultant damage. Physicians typically treat RP with GCs, and the use of other immunosuppressive medications is variable. Absence of a consensus approach to treatment underscores the need for clinical trials and treatment guidelines for RP.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.522

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.327 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it