A pilot randomized trial of adjuvant rituximab or placebo for nonsplenectomized patients with immune thrombocytopenia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The benefit of adding rituximab to standard treatment in nonsplenectomized patients with primary immune thrombocytopenia (ITP) is uncertain. We performed a pilot randomized trial to determine the feasibility of recruitment, protocol adherence, and blinding of a larger trial of rituximab versus placebo; and to evaluate the potential efficacy of adjuvant rituximab in ITP. Nonsplenectomized adults with newly diagnosed or relapsed ITP who were receiving standard ITP therapy for a platelet count below 30 × 10(9)/L were randomly allocated to receive 4 weekly infusions of 375 mg/m(2) rituximab or saline placebo. Sixty patients were recruited over 46 months, which was slower than anticipated. Protocol adherence and follow-up targets were achieved, and blinding was successful for research staff but not for patients. After 6 months, there was no difference between rituximab and placebo groups for the composite outcome of any platelet count below 50 × 10(9)/L, significant bleeding or rescue treatment once standard treatment was stopped (21/32 [65.6%] vs 21/26 [80.8%]; relative risk = 0.81, 95% confidence intervals, 0.59%-1.11%). Timely accrual poses a challenge to the conduct of a large randomized trial of rituximab for presplenectomy ITP. No difference in the frequency of the composite outcome was observed in this pilot trial (registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov NCT00372892).
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 | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".