The effectiveness of treating juvenile dermatomyositis with methotrexate and aggressively tapered corticosteroids
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Childhood dermatomyositis (DM) is often a chronic disease, lasting many years. It has traditionally been treated with long-term corticosteroid therapy; side effects are often seen. For more than a decade, methotrexate (MTX) has been safely used for the treatment of juvenile arthritis. Here, we report use of MTX as first-line therapy for DM, along with aggressively tapered corticosteroids, in an attempt to reduce treatment-related side effects. METHODS: We studied an inception cohort of 31 children with DM who were rigorously followed up in our myositis clinic, and compared them with a control group of 22 patients with incident cases of juvenile DM who received treatment just before we instituted a policy of first-line therapy with MTX. The mean starting dosage of MTX in the study group was 15 mg/m(2)/week. RESULTS: Both groups had similar improvement in strength and physical function; however, the median time during which patients in the study group received corticosteroids was 10 months, compared with 27 months for controls (P < 0.0001). As a result, the cumulative prednisone dose in the study group was approximately half that in the control group (7,574 mg versus 15,152 mg; P = 0.0006). The study group had greater height velocity during the first year of treatment and a smaller increase in the body mass index over the first 2 years. In the control group, the relative risk of cataracts developing was 1.95 (95% confidence interval 1.05-4.17). Side effects of MTX were rarely observed. CONCLUSION: Use of MTX in conjunction with an aggressively tapered course of prednisone may be as effective as traditional long-term corticosteroid therapy for children with DM, while decreasing the cumulative dose of corticosteroids.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".