Safety of Efalizumab in Patients with Moderate to Severe Chronic Plaque Psoriasis: Review of Clinical Data. Part II
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The efficacy and safety of efalizumab have been evaluated in multiple clinical trials. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this review is to provide an overview of the safety profile of efalizumab during the clinical trials. METHODS: Twelve-week data from four placebo-controlled trials were pooled and analyzed. Data from patients receiving 13-60 weeks of efalizumab therapy were pooled to evaluate longer-term safety. RESULTS: The most common adverse events were mild to moderate, self-limiting, flu-like symptoms that were most frequent following the first two efalizumab doses; by the third dose the incidence was comparable to placebo. Serious adverse events were observed in 2.2% and 1.7% of efalizumab- and placebo-treated patients, respectively. Nonserious adverse events leading to withdrawal were infrequent and similar to placebo (2.8% vs 1.8%). There does not appear to be increased risk of end-organ toxicity, infection, or malignancy in efalizumab-treated patients. CONCLUSION: Efalizumab was well tolerated, with a favorable safety profile.
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) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".