Repository corticotropin for Chronic Pulmonary Sarcoidosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The dose of repository corticotropin (RCI) and need for a loading dose in sarcoidosis patients receiving chronic corticosteroids are unclear. We performed a single-blind prospective study, comparing two doses of RCI in sarcoidosis. METHODS: Chronic pulmonary sarcoidosis patients receiving prednisone therapy with deterioration by 5% in FVC in the previous year were studied. RCI was administered subcutaneously at a loading dose of 80 units RCI for 10 days. Patients were randomized at day 14 to receive either 40- or 80-unit RCI twice a week. The dose of prednisone was modified by the clinician who was blinded to the patient's dosage of RCI. RESULTS: Sixteen patients completed the full 24 weeks of the study. At week 24, there was a decrease in the dose of prednisone, and improvements in DLCO, King's Sarcoidosis Questionnaire health status and fatigue score. There was no significant change in FVC % predicted. For the PET scan, there was a significant fall in the standard uptake value (SUV) of the lung lesions. Only 3/8 patients remained on 80 units RCI for full 24 weeks. There was no significant difference in the response to therapy for those treated with 40- versus 80-unit RCI. CONCLUSIONS: Repository corticotropin treatment was prednisone-sparing and associated with significant improvement in DLCO, PET scan, and patient-reported outcome measures. A dose of 40-unit RCI twice a week was as effective as 80-unit RCI and was better 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".