MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7115591542 · doi:10.62438/tunismed.v103i8.5595

Effect of TNF alpha inhibitors on atherosclerosis in psoriatic arthritis patients: a systematic review protocol

2025· article· en· W7115591542 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueLa Tunisie Médicale · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpondyloarthritis Studies and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsoriatic arthritisCochrane LibrarySystematic reviewData extractionArthritisRandomized controlled trialMeta-analysisInflammatory arthritis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is a chronic inflammatory condition associated with joint and skin involvement. Cardiovascular disease, particularly atherosclerosis, is a leading cause of morbidity and premature mortality in PsA patients, due to persistent systemic inflammation. Tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α) inhibitors have proven effective in reducing inflammation in PsA, and some evidence suggests they may also improve vascular health. However, their specific impact on atherosclerosis in PsA remains unclear. OBJECTIVE: This systematic review aims to evaluate the effect of TNF-α inhibitors on the progression of atherosclerosis in adults with PsA. METHODS: This review will follow the PRISMA guidelines. Systematic searches will be conducted in PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and the Cochrane Library using validated search strategies. We will include original observational studies and randomized controlled trials published in English that assess PsA patients treated with TNF-α inhibitors, with comparison groups receiving conventional DMARDs, placebo, or pre-treatment baselines. Studies focusing on direct measures of atherosclerosis or endothelial dysfunction were selected. Reviews, editorials, case reports, and non-English publications will be excluded. Two independent reviewers will conduct the study selection, data extraction, and quality assessment using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for observational studies and the RoB 2 tool for RCTs. Only high-quality studies will be included. A narrative synthesis will be employed due to expected heterogeneity in study designs and outcomes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.045
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.038
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.064
Threshold uncertainty score0.236

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0450.038
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0050.005
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0190.017
Bibliometrics0.0110.010
Science and technology studies0.0030.004
Scholarly communication0.0060.007
Open science0.0050.005
Research integrity0.0060.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0640.006

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.285 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLa Tunisie MédicaleSame topicSpondyloarthritis Studies and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207