A systematic review on the efficacy and safety of Infliximab in patients with psoriasis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy and safety of infliximab for the treatment of psoriasis in a meta-analysis framework. METHODS: Data were extracted by searching the EMBASE (1974-2014), PubMed(1966-2014) and the Cochrane library2013.4th databases. Only randomized and placebo-controlled studies were selected in this study. RESULTS: Statistically significant differences in efficacy were found for the infliximab (3 or 5 mg/kg) group compared with the control group which received placebo in the treatment of psoriasis vulgaris [OR 13.55, 95%CI (11.14,16.48)]or[OR85.45, 95%CI (39.13,186.58)]. There were also significant differences in efficacy between the infliximab (5 mg/kg) group and the placebo control group during treatment of psoriasis arthritis (PsA) [OR8.36, 95%CI (5.63, 12.40)]. A controlled trial used infliximab (5 mg/kg) in the treatment of palmoplantar psoriasis. This study showed that the effective rate of the infliximab group was 33.3% (4/12) when compared to the placebo control group, which was 8.3% (1/12). CONCLUSION: Infliximab is significantly associated with symptom relief, skin lesion improvement, and an increase in the quality of life of psoriasis patients. The most common drug-induced adverse events were pain, hepatic dysfunction, and infusion reaction.
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 | 0.014 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.017 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".