Mycophenolate Mofetil for Induction Therapy of Lupus Nephritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Although the accepted standard of care for induction of lupus nephritis has been cyclophosphamide, recent trials suggest that mycophenolate mofetil may be as or more effective and less toxic. A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to determine the risk for failure to induce remission of lupus nephritis in patients who were treated with mycophenolate mofetil compared with cyclophosphamide. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: Studies were identified by a search of electronic databases, bibliographies, and conference proceedings and by contacting experts. Randomized trials that compared mycophenolate mofetil with cyclophosphamide for induction therapy in adults with biopsy-proven lupus nephritis were eligible. The primary outcome was failure to induce a remission of nephritis as defined by the original studies (based on proteinuria, renal function, and urine sediment). RESULTS: Four studies that included 268 patients and had homogeneous results across studies were identified. In a fixed-effects model, the pooled relative risk for failure to induce remission for mycophenolate mofetil compared with cyclophosphamide was 0.70. The relative risk for the composite outcome of death or end-stage renal disease for mycophenolate mofetil compared with cyclophosphamide was 0.44. Leukopenia and amenorrhea occurred more frequently in cyclophosphamide-treated patients. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment of lupus nephritis with mycophenolate mofetil compared with cyclophosphamide reduces the risk for failure to induce remission during induction therapy and may reduce the risk for death or end-stage renal disease. Mycophenolate mofetil may be considered as a first-line induction therapy for the treatment of lupus nephritis in patients without severe renal dysfunction.
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 | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".