Follow‐up nerve conduction studies in CIDP after treatment with IGIV‐C: Comparison of patients with and without subsequent relapse
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Electrodiagnostic studies (EDX) are not performed routinely before treatment suspension in CIDP, and no data exist regarding their value in predicting clinical relapse. METHODS: Serial EDX (baseline and after IGIV-C therapy) were analyzed from subjects in the ICE clinical trial who responded to IGIV-C treatment and were subsequently re-randomized to placebo in an extension phase. Comparisons were made between subjects who relapsed and those who did not. RESULTS: A total of 55% (6/11) of the Relapse group had an increase in total number of demyelinating findings (DF) versus 8% (1/13) in the No Relapse group (P = 0.023). In the Relapse group, 100% had ≥ 1 new DF and 73% (8/11) had ≥ 4 new DF versus 60% (8/13) and 8% (1/13), respectively, in the No Relapse group. CONCLUSIONS: An increased total number of DF or the occurrence of ≥ 4 new DF may indicate a higher risk of clinical relapse after treatment cessation in IGIV-C-responsive patients.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".