Deep molecular profiling of synovial biopsies in the STRAP trial identifies signatures predictive of treatment response to biologic therapies in rheumatoid arthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Approximately 40% of patients with rheumatoid arthritis do not respond to individual biologic therapies, while biomarkers predictive of treatment response are lacking. Here we analyse RNA-sequencing (RNA-Seq) of pre-treatment synovial tissue from the biopsy-based, precision-medicine STRAP trial (n = 208), to identify gene response signatures to the randomised therapies: etanercept (TNF-inhibitor), tocilizumab (interleukin-6 receptor inhibitor) and rituximab (anti-CD20 B-cell depleting antibody). Machine learning models applied to RNA-Seq predict clinical response to etanercept, tocilizumab and rituximab at the 16-week primary endpoint with area under receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) values of 0.763, 0.748 and 0.754 respectively (n = 67-72) as determined by repeated nested cross-validation. Prediction models for tocilizumab and rituximab are validated in an independent cohort (R4RA): AUC 0.713 and 0.786 respectively (n = 65-68). Predictive signatures are converted for use with a custom synovium-specific 524-gene nCounter panel and retested on synovial biopsy RNA from STRAP patients, demonstrating accurate prediction of treatment response (AUC 0.82-0.87). The converted models are combined into a unified clinical decision algorithm that has the potential to transform future clinical practice by assisting the selection of biologic therapies.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".