Practice pattern variation in oral glucocorticoid therapy after the induction of response in proliferative lupus nephritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Glucocorticoids are standard therapy for induction of response in proliferative lupus nephritis. However, the optimal duration of glucocorticoid therapy is uncertain. We surveyed physicians who treat lupus nephritis regarding their use of glucocorticoids in proliferative lupus nephritis after induction of response and regarding factors associated with different practice patterns. We administered a questionnaire of standardized cases assessing glucocorticoid use after induction of response to specialists with expertise in proliferative lupus nephritis. We examined the association between continuation of glucocorticoids and patient and physician characteristics. Of 90 invited participants, 72 (80%) responded. A total of 24 (33%) respondents attempted to discontinue glucocorticoids in all scenarios, 21 (29%) continued glucocorticoids in all scenarios, and 27 (38%) attempted to discontinue in some scenarios but not others. Responses varied according to the physician group (p < 0.001) and by years in practice (p < 0.001). Of those who discontinued glucocorticoids in selected scenarios, 15/27 (55%) were influenced by the characteristics of the induction of response, 16/27 (59%) by past lupus history, and 9/27 (33%) by the tolerance and use of immunosuppression. We conclude that glucocorticoid therapy after induction of response in proliferative lupus nephritis is varied. This variability likely represents clinical equipoise. A randomized trial evaluating the effect of glucocorticoid use after induction of response is warranted.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".