Evaluation of risk factors for body weight increment in psoriatic patients on infliximab: a multicentre, cross‐sectional study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A significant weight gain has been reported in patients with psoriasis treated with anti-tumour necrosis factor-alpha agents. Among these patients, there are contradictory results about risk factors for weight gain. OBJECTIVE: Assessing risk factors for weight increment in psoriatic patients on infliximab (IFX). METHODS: This study was a 4-month, non-interventional, cross-sectional, multicentre study on adults with psoriasis performed in 19 French dermatological centres. All the patients who received IFX for at least 1 year were prospectively included, with retrospective analysis of data. Impact of sex, age, severity of the disease, cardiovascular and metabolic comorbidities, and previous and simultaneous systemic treatments on weight changes, was analysed. Weight gain was defined as an increment of more than 2% of baseline weight. RESULTS: Overall, 191 psoriatic patients (males: 68.6%; mean age: 46.9 years) were included. Mean weight gain was 1.6 kg (2.1%) after 1 year of IFX. Half (48.2%) suffered from a weight gain, and 9.9% from a weight increment of 10% or more. Baseline weight and Body Mass Index, and cardiovascular and metabolic comorbidities did not influence weight. Men (P=0.007) and patients with severe psoriasis (BSA, P=0.005) had a tendency to put on weight. Patients with a hospital dietary follow-up (P=0.01; OR=0.36 [0.16-0.79]) and patients on methotrexate (P=0.03; OR=0.41 [0.18-0.93]) during IFX treatment are thinner, in a multivariate analysis. CONCLUSION: Severe weight increment is frequent on IFX treatment, mainly in men, and patients with severe psoriasis. Dietary follow-up or simultaneous use of methotrexate could limit this weight increment.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".