Intravenous immunoglobulin as treatment for myasthenia gravis: current evidence and outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We examined the current evidence for the efficacy of IV immunoglobulin (IVIG) in myasthenia gravis (MG) and the outcomes used to demonstrate this efficacy. There is class 1 evidence for the use of short-term IVIG in MG patients worsening MG and also good evidence for IVIG use in myasthenic crisis. For long-term maintenance therapy, controlled studies are lacking and the evidence is limited to class III retrospective studies. The clinical scales, serological, electrophysiological, and patient-reported quality of life outcomes with IVIG have been assessed. At this time, the quantitative myasthenia gravis score, a functional scale, remains the preferable outcome measure as it has demonstrated responsiveness in the clinical trial setting, but a scale incorporating patient-reported outcomes and the patients complaint of fatigue is likely to be preferable. The MG-composite is such a scale, but has measurement limitations that may reduce its sensitivity. Across trials, IVIG has generally been well tolerated.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".