MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2470737176 · doi:10.3899/jrheum.160164

Toreforant, A Histamine H4 Receptor Antagonist, in Patients with Active Rheumatoid Arthritis Despite Methotrexate Therapy: Results of 2 Phase II Studies

2016· article· en· W2470737176 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Robin L. Thurmond, Andrew Greenspan, Waldemar Radziszewski, Xie L. Xu, Ye Miao, Bin Chen, TingTing Ge, Bei Zhou, Daniel G. Baker, Pavlova Dace, Christopher T. Ritchlin, Yoshiya Tanaka, Tsutomu Takeuchi, Josef S Smolen

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Rheumatology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicMast cells and histamine
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersJanssen Scientific Affairs
KeywordsMedicinePlaceboRheumatoid arthritisInternal medicineMethotrexateAntagonistGastroenterologyPlacebo-controlled studyPhases of clinical researchClinical endpointRandomized controlled trialChemotherapyDouble blindReceptorPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To assess toreforant (selective histamine H4 receptor antagonist) in active rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: In a phase IIa, double-blind, placebo-controlled test, 86 patients were randomized (2:1) to once-daily toreforant 100 mg or placebo for 12 weeks. In phase IIb, double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-range-finding evaluations, 272 patients were randomized (1:1:1:1) to once-daily placebo or toreforant 3/10/30 mg. Primary efficacy endpoints for both studies were Week 12 changes in 28-joint Disease Activity Score-C-reactive protein (DAS28-CRP). RESULTS: Phase IIa testing was terminated prematurely (patient fatality; secondary hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis). Posthoc analyses indicated toreforant 100 mg/day reduced RA signs/symptoms through Week 12. Phase IIb testing, however, showed no significant Week 12 improvement in DAS28-CRP with toreforant. CONCLUSION: Toreforant was not effective in phase IIb testing.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.436
Threshold uncertainty score0.469

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.238 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations21
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of RheumatologySame topicMast cells and histamineFrench-language works237,207