Systemic Monotherapy Treatments for Generalized Pustular Psoriasis: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Generalized pustular psoriasis (GPP) is a rare but serious and difficult to treat cutaneous disease, with high morbidity and mortality rates. Despite the numerous treatment regimens available, the overall quality of evidence-based research is limited with a lack of an algorithmic approach available. In this review, we aim to evaluate the current level of evidence regarding the efficacy and safety/tolerability of systemic monotherapies available in the treatment of GPP. A comprehensive MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PubMed search of clinical studies examining systemic monotherapy treatment options for GPP was conducted. In total, 31 studies met eligibility criteria. Described treatment modalities included retinoids, cyclosporine, biologics, and dapsone. Despite the lack of high-quality evidence or a well-accepted treatment algorithm for GPP, systemic retinoids, cyclosporine, biologics, and dapsone are all possible first-line agents, with retinoids being one of the best-supported treatment options and biologics as an emerging therapeutic field with great potential requiring additional data. However, the final choice of treatment should be considered within the unique context of each patient.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".