IV immunoglobulin in patients with myasthenia gravis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We aimed to determine the effectiveness of IV immunoglobulin (IVIG) in the treatment of patients with myasthenia gravis (MG) and worsening weakness in a randomized, placebo-controlled, masked study. METHODS: Fifty-one patients with worsening weakness due to MG were randomized to infusion with 2 g/kg of IVIG or an equivalent volume of IV dextrose 5% in water. The Quantitative Myasthenia Gravis (QMG) Score for Disease Severity, a validated clinical composite scale, was calculated by a masked observer at baseline and days 14 and 28. RESULTS: In IVIG-treated patients, a clinically meaningful improvement in QMG Score for Disease Severity was observed at day 14 and persisted at day 28. The greatest improvement occurred in patients with more severe disease as defined by a QMG Score for Disease Severity greater than 10.5. CONCLUSION: This study provides level 1 evidence for the effectiveness of IV immunoglobulin in patients with worsening weakness due to myasthenia gravis.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".