A randomised, multi‐centre phase III study of 3 different doses of intravenous immunoglobulin 10% in patients with chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy (ProCID trial): Study design and protocol
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Patients with chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy (CIDP) show varying degrees of response to intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) therapy. This randomised phase III study in patients with CIDP (ProCID trial) will compare the efficacy and safety of 3 different doses (0.5, 1.0, and 2.0 g/kg) of IVIg 10% (panzyga) administered every 3 weeks for 24 weeks. The primary efficacy endpoint is the rate of treatment response, defined as a decrease in adjusted inflammatory neuropathy cause and treatment disability score of ≥1 point, in the IVIg 1.0 g/kg arm at week 24. Patients with definite or probable CIDP according to European Federation of Neurological Sciences/Peripheral Nerve Society criteria with IVIg or corticosteroid dependency and active disease are eligible. All potentially eligible patients will undergo IVIg or corticosteroid dose reduction (washout phase) over ≤12 weeks or until deterioration of CIDP (active disease). Patients with deterioration during the washout phase will be randomised to receive study treatment during a dose-evaluation phase starting with a loading dose of IVIg 2.0 g/kg followed by maintenance treatment with IVIg 0.5, 1.0, or 2.0 g/kg every 3 weeks. Rescue medication (2 doses of IVIg 2.0 g/kg given 3 weeks apart) will be administered to patients in the IVIg 0.5 and 1.0 g/kg groups who deteriorate after week 3 and before week 18 or who do not improve at week 6. Safety, tolerability and quality of life will be assessed. The ProCID study will provide new information on the best maintenance dose of IVIg for patients with CIDP.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it