Treatment Intensification in Patients With Kawasaki Disease and Coronary Aneurysm at Diagnosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Coronary artery aneurysms (CAA) are a serious complication of Kawasaki disease. Treatment with intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) within 10 days of fever onset reduces the risk of CAA from 25% to <5%. Corticosteroids and infliximab are often used in high-risk patients or those with CAA at diagnosis, but there are no data on their longer-term impact on CAA. METHODS: Retrospective multicenter study including children who had CAA with a z score ≥2.5 and <10 at time of diagnosis and who received primary therapy with IVIg alone or in combination with either corticosteroids or infliximab within 10 days of onset of fever. RESULTS: Of 121 children, with a median age of 2.8 (range 0.1–15.5) years, 30 (25%) received primary therapy with corticosteroids and IVIg, 58 (48%) received primary therapy with infliximab and IVIg, and 33 (27%) received primary therapy with IVIg only. Median coronary z scores at the time of diagnosis did not differ among treatment groups (P = .39). Primary treatment intensification with either corticosteroids or infliximab were independent protective factors against progression of coronary size on follow-up (coefficient: −1.31 [95% confidence interval: −2.33 to −0.29]; coefficient: −1.07 [95% confidence interval: −1.95 to −0.19], respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Among a high-risk group of patients with Kawasaki disease with CAA on baseline echocardiography, those treated with corticosteroids or infliximab in addition to IVIg had less progression in CAA size compared with those treated with IVIg alone. Prospective randomized trials are needed to determine the best adjunctive treatment of patients who present with CAA.
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".