MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2103499669 · doi:10.3109/09546634.2012.713458

Effect of adalimumab on sleep parameters in patients with psoriasis and obstructive sleep apnea: a randomized controlled trial

2012· article· en· W2103499669 on OpenAlexaff
Catherine Maari, Chantal Bolduc, Simon Nigen, Philippe Marchessault, Robert Bissonnette

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Dermatological Treatment · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicPsoriasis: Treatment and Pathogenesis
Canadian institutionsInnovaderm (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAdalimumabPsoriasisPolysomnographyObstructive sleep apneaRandomized controlled trialPlaceboSleep apneaInternal medicinePsoriasis Area and Severity IndexAnesthesiaApneaDermatologyTumor necrosis factor alpha

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is frequently seen in patients with psoriasis vulgaris. The effect of adalimumab, a TNF-α antagonist, on OSA is unknown. METHODS: Patients with at least 5% of their body surface area covered with psoriasis and a sleep apnea defined as an apnea/hypopnea index (AHI) of at least 15 were recruited. They were randomized to either adalimumab 80 mg followed by adalimumab 40 mg every other week for 7 weeks or placebo. Patients were evaluated by polysomnography at baseline and day 56. The objective of this trial was to study the efficacy of adalimumab on sleep parameters in patients with psoriasis and OSA. The primary end point of this double-blind study was the change in AHI between baseline and day 56. RESULTS: A total of 20 patients who were randomized completed the trial. There was no significant difference (p = 0.485) (95% CI = -21.07-42.73) at day 56 in the change from baseline in AHI between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Adalimumab used for 8 weeks at 40 mg every other week for the treatment of psoriasis did not improve OSA in this 20-patient study.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.057
Threshold uncertainty score0.656

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.225 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations30
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Dermatological TreatmentSame topicPsoriasis: Treatment and PathogenesisFrench-language works237,207