Predictors of response to immunomodulation in patients with myasthenia gravis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Factors determining response to intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) and plasmapheresis in myasthenia gravis (MG) have not been evaluated systematically. METHODS: This study included patients treated with IVIg (n = 63) or plasmapheresis (n = 42) from two trials evaluating IVIg vs. placebo or plasmapheresis in MG. Response was defined as improvement in the quantitative myasthenia gravis score (QMGS) of ≥3.5 points at day 14. Baseline clinical, electrophysiological, and immunological factors were analyzed as predictors. RESULTS: Baseline QMGS, acetylcholine receptor antibody (AChRAb) positivity, single-fiber electromyography (SFEMG) jitter, and percent abnormal pairs and percent blocking pairs were higher in responders than in non-responders. Using multivariate logistic regression, the odds ratio for response was 13.0 (1.01-381.5) in QMGS 11-17 and 15.3 (1.34-414.3) in QMGS >17 compared with QMGS <11. CONCLUSIONS: Baseline QMGS, AChRAb positivity, and SFEMG parameters were more abnormal in patients who responded to treatment. Using multivariate regression, baseline QMGS remained as the only significant independent predictor of response.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".