Pharmacodynamics and tolerability of repository corticotropin injection in healthy human subjects: A comparison with intravenous methylprednisolone
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Repository corticotropin injection (porcine adrenocorticotropic hormone [ACTH] analog) and intravenous methylprednisolone (IVMP) are used to treat inflammatory conditions such as multiple sclerosis (MS) exacerbations and rheumatoid arthritis. This multiple-dose, randomized, crossover, open-label study evaluated and compared pharmacodynamic outcomes in subjects who received ACTH analog (80 U subcutaneously) or IVMP (1 g) daily for 5 days. Specific outcome measures included IVMP and cortisol concentrations, total cortisol-equivalent exposure, immune cell population changes, and tolerability. IVMP and ACTH analog increased granulocyte numbers and decreased lymphocyte counts; effects on both were significantly less pronounced with ACTH analog. Based on total cortisol-equivalent exposure (assuming linearity), administration of 80 U of ACTH analog equates to 30 mg IVMP. Because IVMP doses significantly higher than 30 mg are usually required to treat MS exacerbations, the lower cortisol-equivalent exposure of 80 U ACTH analog supports the hypothesis that efficacy of ACTH analog results from both steroid-dependent and -independent properties. Adverse events were mild in severity; subject incidence for adverse-event reporting was similar following both regimens. The clinical relevance of these findings in autoimmune disease populations is unknown and requires further evaluation.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".