Rituximab in refractory myasthenia gravis: Extended prospective study results
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Introduction : Rituximab appears to be beneficial in treatment‐refractory myasthenia gravis (MG); however, prospective, long‐term durability data are lacking. Methods : In this prospective, open‐label study of rituximab in refractory MG, 22 patients (10 nicotinic acetylcholine receptor, 9 muscle‐specific tyrosine kinase, 3 seronegative) received rituximab at baseline, with repeat cycles driven by clinical worsening. Manual muscle testing (MMT) scores and CD19/CD20 + B‐cell counts were serially monitored. Results : At mean follow‐up of 28.8 ± 19.0 months (range, 6–66), mean MMT scores declined from 10.6 ± 5.4 to 3.3 ± 3.1 ( P < 0.0001). Mean prednisone dosage declined from 25.2 ± 15.1 to 7.3 ± 7.1 mg/d ( P = 0.002). Ten relapses occurred, with average time to first relapse of 17.1 ± 5.5 months (range, 9–23). CD19/CD20 + count recovery did not predict relapse. Three patients experienced prolonged B‐cell depletion (range, 24–45 months) after 1 cycle. Discussion : Sustained clinical improvement was associated with rituximab after 1 cycle, with prolonged time to relapse and reduction in steroid dosage. Muscle Nerve 58 : 453–456, 2018
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 | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".