MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2893494515 · doi:10.1007/s40257-018-0388-z

Effect of Age of Onset of Psoriasis on Clinical Outcomes with Systemic Treatment in the Psoriasis Longitudinal Assessment and Registry (PSOLAR)

2018· article· en· W2893494515 on OpenAlexaff
Sanminder Singh, Robert E. Kalb, E.M.G.J. de Jong, Neil H. Shear, Mark Lebwohl, Wayne Langholff, Lori Hopkins, Bhaskar Srivastava, April W. Armstrong

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Clinical Dermatology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicPsoriasis: Treatment and Pathogenesis
Canadian institutionsSunnybrook Health Science CentreUniversity of Toronto
FundersJanssen Scientific AffairsUniversity of Pennsylvania
KeywordsMedicinePsoriasisEtanerceptInfliximabAdalimumabInternal medicineOdds ratioConfidence intervalPsoriasis Area and Severity IndexMethotrexateUstekinumabSurgeryDermatologyRheumatoid arthritisDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to compare therapeutic response among patients with early-onset psoriasis (EOP) and late-onset psoriasis (LOP) receiving adalimumab, etanercept, infliximab, ustekinumab, or methotrexate in the Psoriasis Longitudinal Assessment and Registry (PSOLAR). METHODS: Patients were grouped by age of onset: EOP (age ≤ 40 years) or LOP (age > 40 years). Repeated-measures analysis with logistic regression was used to calculate the adjusted odds ratio (AOR; adjusted for baseline characteristics) for achieving a Physician's Global Assessment score of cleared/minimal (PGA 0/1) or a percentage of body surface area involved with psoriasis < 3% (%BSA < 3) or %BSA < 1 for all patients; similar sensitivity analyses were performed for each treatment group. RESULTS: Of 7511 patients, 5479 (72.9%) had EOP. The LOP group had a higher likelihood of achieving PGA 0/1 after treatment than did the EOP group in all patients (AOR 1.14 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.05-1.25]; p = 0.0019); the same was true in subgroups of etanercept-treated (AOR 1.38 [95% CI 1.14-1.66]; p = 0.0010) and methotrexate-treated (AOR 1.62 [95% CI 1.16-2.26]; p = 0.0049) patients. No significant difference was found between the EOP and LOP groups with regard to the likelihood of achieving %BSA < 3 or %BSA < 1 among all patients. However, LOP patients were more likely than EOP patients to achieve %BSA < 3 or %BSA < 1 in subgroups treated with infliximab (AOR 1.45 [95% CI 1.09-1.93; p = 0.0103] and AOR 1.36 [95% CI 1.03-1.78; p = 0.0290], respectively) and etanercept (AOR 1.30 [95% CI 1.06-1.61; p = 0.0123] and AOR 1.34 [95% CI 1.09-1.64; p = 0.0053], respectively). CONCLUSION: Our real-world data from PSOLAR indicate that there are differences in some patient characteristics between EOP and LOP and that patients with EOP are less likely than those with LOP to respond to certain systemic treatments. (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00508547).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.063

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.390
Teacher spread0.350 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations29
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Clinical DermatologySame topicPsoriasis: Treatment and PathogenesisFrench-language works237,207