MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413889888 · doi:10.1177/20499361251368006

Circulating TNF-α levels in rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis and comparison to TNF-α levels in sepsis

2025· review· en· W4413889888 on OpenAlex
Sias Scherger, Andrés F. Henao‐Martínez, Carlos Franco‐Paredes, Binh Ngo, Alyssa Grimshaw, Ranjit Sah, Sangam Shah, Stefan Sillau, Alfonso Bastías, Michaele Francesco Corbisiero, Hannah Kyllo, Jordan Stellern, Leland Shapiro

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueTherapeutic Advances in Infectious Disease · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicImmune Response and Inflammation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRheumatoid arthritisMeta-analysisCochrane LibrarySepsisInternal medicineTumor necrosis factor alphaTNF inhibitorSystematic reviewMEDLINEImmunologyAdalimumabGastroenterology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α) is implicated in the pathogenesis of autoimmune conditions and sepsis. Although anti-TNF-α therapies have demonstrated clinical efficacy in rheumatoid arthritis (RA), there is no established evidence for benefit in patients with sepsis. Objectives: We sought to quantify circulating TNF-α in patients with RA and compare results to TNF-α levels in sepsis. Design: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of circulating TNF-α in patients with RA. We searched Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, Ovid Embase, Ovid MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science Core Collection databases from inception until May 30, 2023. We included randomized controlled studies and observational reports containing more than ten subjects that reported mean serum or plasma TNF-α levels. We used the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale to assess methodological quality of studies. Data sources and methods: Summary data were extracted and analyzed using a random-effects model to estimate the pooled mean circulating TNF-α. Circulating TNF-α in RA was compared to TNF-α levels reported in our systematic review and meta-analysis characterizing cytokine levels in sepsis. Results: We identified and screened 8764 studies, and 104 studies satisfied the inclusion criteria (5399 total participants, including 4419 females). Pooled estimated mean RA TNF-α was 23.1 pg/mL (95% CI 17.8–30.1) in the random-effects model. There was significantly lower TNF-α in RA patients using disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs, p = 0.04) and patients using corticosteroids ( p = 0.01). After adjustment for age and sex, there was no significant difference between TNF-α in RA compared to sepsis. Conclusion: No significant difference between adjusted TNF-α levels in patients with RA versus sepsis was determined. Since TNF-α antagonists show benefit in RA but not sepsis despite comparable circulating concentrations, we conclude TNF-α does not contribute to sepsis pathogenesis. TNF-α concentration may be slightly higher due to study heterogeneity. Trial registration: This investigation was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42023425361).

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.438
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.312 · 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