Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40901469›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in immunology2025

Dual

Yan Ma, Chaoyu Gu, Qianqian Li, Liangjing Lu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in immunology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

4 authors.

Yan Ma *Department of Rheumatology, Renji Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China.
Chaoyu Gu *Department of Rheumatology, Renji Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China.
Qianqian LiDepartment of Rheumatology, Renji Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China.
Liangjing LuDepartment of Rheumatology, Renji Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the clinical and immunological significance of anti-Ro52/TRIM21 and anti-Ro60/SSA antibodies in rheumatoid arthritis (RA), particularly the association of dual antibody positivity with disease severity, systemic manifestations, and therapeutic resistance. Methods: We conducted a cohort study involving 670 RA patients, stratified into four groups according to anti-Ro52 and anti-Ro60 antibody status: Ro52+/Ro60+, Ro52+/Ro60-, Ro52-/Ro60+, and Ro52-/Ro60-. Clinical characteristics, disease activity scores (DAS28-ESR, DAS28-CRP), systemic complications, and treatment responses were compared among groups. Multivariate logistic regression models identified independent predictors of difficult-to-treat RA (D2T-RA). Results: Patients with dual Ro52+/Ro60+ positivity exhibited significantly higher disease activity (median DAS28-ESR: 4.97 Conclusion: Anti-Ro antibody subtyping effectively identifies distinct clinical and immunological RA subgroups. Patients with isolated Ro60 antibody positivity display a relatively less severe clinical profile compared to those with dual antibody positivity, highlighting the importance of specific antibody profiles in guiding personalized clinical management and therapeutic decision-making.

Indexed as

Antibodies, AntinuclearArthritis, RheumatoidRibonucleoproteinsAdultAgedBiomarkersFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedSeverity of Illness IndexAntibodies, AntinuclearBiomarkersRibonucleoproteinsSS-A antibodiesanti-Ro52 antibodyanti-Ro60 antibodyanti-Ro antibody subtypingdifficult-to-treat rheumatoid arthritis (D2T-RA)rheumatoid arthritis (RA)

Identifiers

PMID40901469
PMCPMC12399673

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.