Safety of plasma exchange therapy in patients with myasthenia gravis
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Plasma exchange (PLEX) is effective in myasthenia gravis (MG), but there are concerns about its safety. METHODS: We collected data prospectively from 42 patients randomized to PLEX treatment in a comparison study with intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg). Detailed information on the PLEX treatment methodology and adverse events are reported. RESULTS: Forty of 42 patients completed PLEX. Ninety percent were treated in an outpatient setting. Fifty-five percent had no complications, and 45% had mild-moderate reactions that did not require stopping treatment; the majority were citrate reactions and peripheral vascular issues that were easily treated. Fifty-seven percent of patients responded to treatment, and 83% completed PLEX via peripheral venous access. Two patients had severe adverse events: 1 related and 1 unrelated to PLEX. Comorbid disease and age did not predict reactions. CONCLUSION: PLEX is safe, effective, and well tolerated in patients with MG. Our results do not raise concerns about the safety of PLEX in patients with moderate-severe MG.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it