Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40192881›Full record

ArticleRheumatology international2025

Artificial intelligence to predict treatment response in rheumatoid arthritis and spondyloarthritis: a scoping review.

Diego Benavent, Loreto Carmona, Jose Francisco García Llorente, María Montoro, Susan Ramirez, Teresa Otón, Estíbaliz Loza, Antonio Gómez-Centeno

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Rheumatology international, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

27 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Observational
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Diego BenaventRheumatology Department, Hospital Universitari de Bellvitge, Carrer de la Feixa Llarga, s/n, L'Hospitalet de Llobregat, 08907, Barcelona, Spain. d_benavent@hotmail.com.ORCID 0000-0001-9119-5330
Loreto CarmonaInstituto de Salud Musculoesquelética, 28039, Madrid, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-4401-2551
Jose Francisco García LlorenteRheumatology Department, Hospital de Galdacano, Galdakao, 48960, Bilbao, Spain.ORCID 0000-0001-7525-4492
María MontoroPfizer Medical, Alcobendas, 28108, Madrid, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-1807-7044
Susan RamirezPfizer Medical, Alcobendas, 28108, Madrid, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-5538-5126
Teresa OtónInstituto de Salud Musculoesquelética, 28039, Madrid, Spain.ORCID 0000-0003-3622-7146
Estíbaliz LozaInstituto de Salud Musculoesquelética, 28039, Madrid, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-4607-9178
Antonio Gómez-CentenoRheumatology Department, Parc Taulí Hospital UniversitariInstitut d'Investigació i Innovació Parc Taulí (I3PT), Sabadell, 28108, Barcelona, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-8674-6692

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

To analyse the types and applications of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies to predict treatment response in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and spondyloarthritis (SpA). A comprehensive search in Medline, Embase, and Cochrane databases (up to August 2024) identified studies using AI to predict treatment response in RA and SpA. Data on study design, AI methodologies, data sources, and outcomes were extracted and synthesized. Findings were summarized descriptively. Of the 4257 articles identified, 89 studies met the inclusion criteria (74 on RA, 7 on SpA, 4 on Psoriatic Arthritis and 4 a mix of them). AI models primarily employed supervised machine learning techniques (e.g., random forests, support vector machines), unsupervised clustering, and deep learning. Data sources included electronic medical records, clinical biomarkers, genetic and proteomic data, and imaging. Predictive performance varied by methodology, with accuracy ranging from 60 to 70% and AUC values between 0.63 and 0.92. Multi-omics approaches and imaging-based models showed promising results in predicting responses to biologic DMARDs and JAK inhibitors but methodological heterogeneity limited generalizability. AI technologies exhibit substantial potential in predicting treatment responses in RA and SpA, enhancing personalized medicine. However, challenges such as methodological variability, data integration, and external validation remain. Future research should focus on refining AI models, ensuring their robustness across diverse patient populations, and facilitating their integration into clinical practice to optimize therapeutic decision-making in rheumatology.

Indexed as

Antirheumatic AgentsArthritis, RheumatoidArtificial IntelligenceSpondylarthritisHumansTreatment OutcomeAntirheumatic AgentsArtificial intelligenceMachine learningRheumatoid arthritisScoping reviewSpondyloarthritisTreatment response

Identifiers

PMID40192881
PMCPMC11976819

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.