High-dose dexamethasone vs prednisone for treatment of adult immune thrombocytopenia: a prospective multicenter randomized trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study compared the efficacy and safety of high-dose dexamethasone (HD-DXM) and conventional prednisone (PDN) on the largest cohort to date as first-line strategies for newly diagnosed adult primary immune thrombocytopenia (ITP). Patients enrolled were randomized to receive DXM 40 mg/d for 4 days (n = 95, nonresponders received an additional 4-day course of DXM) or prednisone 1.0 mg/kg daily for 4 weeks and then tapered (n = 97). One or 2 courses of HD-DXM resulted in a higher incidence of overall initial response (82.1% vs 67.4%, P = .044) and complete response (50.5% vs 26.8%, P = .001) compared with prednisone. Time to response was shorter in the HD-DXM arm (P < .001), and a baseline bleeding score ≥8 was associated with a decreased likelihood of initial response. Sustained response was achieved by 40.0% of patients in the HD-DXM arm and 41.2% in the PDN arm (P = .884). Initial complete response was a positive indicator of sustained response, whereas presence of antiplatelet autoantibodies was a negative indicator. HD-DXM was generally tolerated better. We concluded that HD-DXM could be a preferred corticosteroid strategy for first-line management of adult primary ITP. This study is registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT01356511.
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) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".