Safety and Efficacy of Adalimumab for the Treatment of Severe Alopecia Areata: Case Series of Three Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Current therapeutic options for extensive alopecia areata (AA) often lead to disappointing results. OBJECTIVE: To study the efficacy and safety of adalimumab in patients with severe AA. METHODS: This was a prospective, open-label, single-center, pilot study. Three subjects of the planned 10 were enrolled and received two weekly subcutaneous (SC) loading doses of adalimumab 80 mg followed by 40 mg SC every week for 6 months. Patients were evaluated for efficacy and safety on a monthly basis. RESULTS: Enrolment in this trial was stopped following publication of studies showing no improvement in patients with AA treated with tumor necrosis factor α antagonists. One patient had a favorable response to adalimumab, whereas the two other patients had no benefit from the therapy. Adalimumab was well tolerated by patients with AA. CONCLUSION: Adalimumab was well tolerated in patients with AA but did not induce clinically significant hair regrowth.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".