Successful Treatment of Complex Aphthosis With Colchicine and Dapsone
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effectiveness of colchicine and dapsone, 2 corticosteroid-sparing anti-inflammatory agents, in the treatment of patients with complex aphthosis (recurrent oral and genital aphthous ulcers or severe, almost constant, multiple oral aphthae in the absence of Behçet syndrome). DESIGN: Retrospective review of medical records. SETTING: Tertiary care medical clinic. PATIENTS: Fifty-five patients with complex aphthosis evaluated and treated at Mayo Clinic between January 1, 1998, and July 31, 2007. All the patients were treated according to a therapeutic ladder, starting with colchicine and adding dapsone to treatment of patients who did not have a substantial response (>75% improvement) to colchicine or who discontinued colchicine use because of adverse effects. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: A substantial response to therapy with colchicine alone, dapsone alone, or colchicine and dapsone combined. RESULTS: Most patients (44 [80%]) had a substantial response to therapy and had no serious adverse effects. CONCLUSIONS: Colchicine and dapsone are effective, safe therapies for the treatment of complex aphthosis. Colchicine and dapsone, 2 established drugs also used for gout and leprosy, respectively, and for other dermatologic disorders, should be considered efficacious in the treatment of complex aphthosis.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".