Cyclophosphamide for Systemic Sclerosis-related Interstitial Lung Disease: A Comparison of Scleroderma Lung Study I and II
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare safety and efficacy outcomes between the cyclophosphamide (CYC) arms of Scleroderma Lung Study (SLS) I and II. METHODS: Participants enrolled in the CYC arms of SLS I (n = 79) and II (n = 69) were included. SLS I and II randomized participants to oral CYC for 1 year and followed patients for an additional year off therapy (in SLS II, patients received placebo in Year 2). Eligibility criteria for SLS I and II were nearly identical. Outcomes included the forced vital capacity (FVC%)-predicted and DLCO%-predicted (measured every 3 mos) and quantitative radiographic extent of interstitial lung disease (measured at 1 and 2 yrs for SLS I and SLS II, respectively). Joint models were created to evaluate the treatment effect on the course of the FVC/DLCO over 2 years while controlling for baseline disease severity. RESULTS: SLS I and II CYC participants had similar baseline characteristics. After adjusting for baseline disease severity, there was no difference in the course of the FVC%-predicted (p = 0.535) nor the DLCO%-predicted (p = 0.172) between the SLS I and II CYC arms. In both groups, treatment with CYC led to a significant improvement in the FVC%-predicted from 3 to 12 months, but no significant improvement beyond this point. Treatment with CYC had no effect on the DLCO for either group. CONCLUSION: Treatment with 1 year of oral CYC led to similar improvements in lung function in both SLS I and II, although the effects were not sustained following cessation of CYC. These results suggest that increasing the duration of ILD therapy may improve outcomes for patients with systemic sclerosis-ILD.
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 | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".