Clinical and immunological outcomes of high- and low-dose rituximab treatments in patients with pemphigus: a randomized, comparative, observer-blinded study
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Rituximab is a promising therapy in pemphigus. However, there is no consensus on optimum dose. OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy, in terms of clinical and immunological outcomes in patients with pemphigus, of a high (2 × 1000 mg) vs. a low dose (2 × 500 mg) of rituximab. METHODS: This was a randomized, observer-blinded trial wherein 22 patients with pemphigus were randomized into two treatment groups. Patients received either two doses (day 0 and day 15) of 1000 mg rituximab or 500 mg rituximab, and were followed up for 48 weeks. Clinical activity was assessed by a blinded investigator. Indices of enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs) for desmoglein (Dsg)1 and Dsg3, and CD19 cell count were examined at regular intervals. RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference in early and late clinical end points, and total cumulative dose of corticosteroids between the two groups. At week 40, the fall in Ikeda severity score was significantly more in the 2 × 1000 mg group than in 2 × 500 mg group (P = 0·049). Patients in the 2 × 500 mg group received a significantly higher cumulative dose of azathioprine (P = 0·018). The ELISA indices of Dsg1 and Dsg3 showed a statistically significant decline in the 2 × 1000 mg group only. B cell repopulation occurred earlier in the 2 × 500 mg group by 8 weeks. CONCLUSIONS: A few clinical and immunological study parameters have suggested improved outcomes in patients receiving high-dose (2 × 1000 mg) rituximab.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it