Recommendations for incorporating biologicals into management of moderate to severe plaque psoriasis: individualized patient approaches
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Psoriasis is a T-cell mediated skin disease that affects approximately 2% of the population worldwide. Despite the prevalence of the disease and long-standing efforts to develop strategies to treat it, there is a need for safe and effective therapies to treat psoriasis, particularly the more severe forms. Biological agents such as alefacept, efalizumab, etanercept, and infliximab have been recognized as a class of treatment distinct from other forms of therapy in the treatment algorithm of psoriasis. Recent national and international consensus meetings have developed statements that position biological agents as an important addition to the treatment armamentarium for moderate to severe psoriasis, along with phototherapy and traditional systemic agents. There has been consensus that treatment should be individualized to each patient's needs and circumstances. Biological agents offer the hope of safe, effective, long-term management of moderate to severe psoriasis. As new agents receive approval from Health Canada, the available range of therapeutic options for treating this chronic disease will broaden. A Canadian Psoriasis Expert Panel recently convened in February 2005 to analyze, based on a series of clinical case scenarios, the indications, contraindications, and considerations for and against each of the four biological agents, derived from product labelling, where available, and from the efficacy and safety data from phase 3 and earlier clinical trials, as well as post-marketing reports. The Panel has formulated a set of recommendations for incorporating these biological agents into the current treatment paradigm of moderate to severe plaque psoriasis and has identified the preferred biological agents for each patient based on individual needs and circumstances.
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 | 0.027 | 0.078 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.021 | 0.027 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.010 |
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".