Treatment of Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis with the Combination of Infliximab and High-Dose Intravenous Immunoglobulin
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Therapeutic evidence for toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN) is indicative for high-dose intravenous immunoglobulin yet inconclusive for corticosteroids. OBJECTIVE: To describe the combination of corticosteroids, infliximab and a high-dose intravenous immunoglobulin course for TEN. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In three patients (SCORTEN survival probabilities: 41.7%, 64.2%, 41.7%) disease control was evaluated by (a) employing quantitative image analysis to measure progression of skin detachment and (b) patients' outcome (complete re-epithelization). Published cases of TEN treatments with infliximab were retrieved from PubMed. RESULTS: Within 48 h skin disease progression was arrested in all patients. Two patients were discharged after 3 weeks without any sequels from skin or conjunctivae. One patient passed away on the ninth day, however with noticeably improved skin (mortality rate: 33% observed vs. 50% expected). A PubMed search retrieved five TEN patients treated successfully with infliximab. CONCLUSION: The described combination presents a feasible therapeutic alternative for TEN that warrants further evaluation.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".